I am sure this is answered somewhere, but could not locate it. Do psychic powers stack? Like the Eldar Warlock powers. In essence, with eldar Runes of Battle, would two castings of Protect give a total of +2 armour save?, or Empower give +2 Strength. Even Horrify, would multiple castings of it lower leadership values from -3 to -6 with a second casting?

Yes, two different castings of the same power will stack. Provided you can actually get multiple copies of the power on the field.

thanks, that helps a lot.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, two different castings of the same power will stack. Provided you can actually get multiple copies of the power on the field.

There is contention over the use of different. Some see it as meaning different powers others as being two different castings.
It would be best to check with a TO or see if there is a house rule on it in a club before building a strategy around it.

Blitz100 wrote:
I am sure this is answered somewhere, but could not locate it. Do psychic powers stack? Like the Eldar Warlock powers. In essence, with eldar Runes of Battle, would two castings of Protect give a total of +2 armour save?, or Empower give +2 Strength. Even Horrify, would multiple castings of it lower leadership values from -3 to -6 with a second casting?

Don't all those powers state "when this power is in effect, ..." ?
If they do, wouldn't they "be in effect" no matter how many were cast on the unit, leading to no stacking ?

"...this power..." is singular, so it is specifically referring to the instance of the power cast by that psyker.

 Grey Templar wrote:
"...this power..." is singular, so it is specifically referring to the instance of the power cast by that psyker.

How would it be phrased then? "When these powers are in effect"? That sure doesn't sound right.

No, they would phrase it "multiple castings of the same power do not stack". Or the power itself would say it doesn't stack with itself.

 Grey Templar wrote:
"...this power..." is singular, so it is specifically referring to the instance of the power cast by that psyker.

This power, as 'Enfeeble' or 'Jinx'. Ie. 'Whilst Jinx is in effect...'

But we have had several huge threads about this, so maybe someone could find them instead of having one again? In any case, there is no consensus, so it would be helpful to tell people who ask this that.

Here's one where both sides had their take I think.
Good luck with that.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/503048.page

This thread is more recent.

I think RAW supports Psychic powers stacking... but the last "Enfeeble" thread reached 11 pages with no clear majority or decision. GW has neglected to post an FAQ in ages, and the last poll was a 51-49% split I recall.

Basically, ask your local judge for tournaments... and then check with opponents.

It all boils down to whether "the power" refers to that casting of the power or the power in and of itself, GW have so far neglected to tell us what the correct interpretation is, so the correct answer to "can you stack the same power" is "maybe, we don't know, lol".

My two cents:

"It should be noted that different Psykers in the same army can have the same psychic power(s)." page 418 BRB

Same powers are still the same even from different psykers.

"A Psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more"than once each turn" page 67 BRB

Same powers are the same even from different uses.

"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." page 68 BRB

Different powers are permitted to stack.

(looks through entire BRB)

Same powers are not given permission to stack.

 Abandon wrote:
Same powers are not given permission to stack.

Stacking is simply a word used to describe repetition.

You're given permission to cast a power and apply it's effects.
You're given permission to do it again (with a different Psyker) and apply it's effects.

Permission is granted. And never taken away.

Similar thing with wounds. No where in the BRB does it say wounds stack.
But you cause a wound on a character.
Then cause another.
And another.
By following basic maths, you get stacking.

^ While mostly correct, you assume that permission is never denied, however the wording of specific blessings and maledictions may or may not deny permission.

I just wish that whoever wrote the rules for 40k were actually, you know, competent at writing with clarity and consistency.

It is really unfortunate that there still isn't a FAQ clarifying this. Before the Eldar book this was not a big deal, but with Eldar having access to huge number of psykers with a lore with lots of blessings and maledictions this affects things a lot.

There probably will never be an FAQ, because GW spells it out in 5 different places in the BRB that effects from different abilities stack, and in 1 place that effects from multiple uses of the same ability do not stack. Its unfortunate that 50% of the player base plays it wrong (we just can't figure out which 50% is wrong)

SJ

 grendel083 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Same powers are not given permission to stack.

Stacking is simply a word used to describe repetition.

You're given permission to cast a power and apply it's effects.
You're given permission to do it again (with a different Psyker) and apply it's effects.

Permission is granted. And never taken away.

Similar thing with wounds. No where in the BRB does it say wounds stack.
But you cause a wound on a character.
Then cause another.
And another.
By following basic maths, you get stacking.

Actually in this context 'to stack' means 'to add up'. The book actually uses the word cumulative though which has a much more specific meaning.

Are those powers permitted to accumulate though?

"Continue allocating unsaved wounds to the closest model until there are no more Wounds left.." Page 15 BRB
This wording actually does indicate a cumulative system for wounds as it would make no sense in a non-cumulative system.

 Abandon wrote:
Are those powers permitted to accumulate though?

Would depend entirely on the power in question. Something using a straight modifier, I'd say yes.

"Continue allocating unsaved wounds to the closest model until there are no more Wounds left.." Page 15 BRB
This wording actually does indicate a cumulative system for wounds as it would make no sense in a non-cumulative system.

Fair enough, for a single round of shooting. But subsequent rounds?
It's very much a "rinse and repeat" system.
So these wounds would be accumulating/stacking.

Well I'm fairly certain in my assessment I should also say that GW has pretty much given us a puzzle with only half the peices so... who knows for sure.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
GW spells it out... in 1 place that effects from multiple uses of the same ability do not stack.

Please, do tell me where this is.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
GW spells it out... in 1 place that effects from multiple uses of the same ability do not stack.

Please, do tell me where this is.

As you very well know from previous threads on this subject we've both posted in, I'm referring to pg. 32 of the BRB. The fact that there is a least one psychic with the verbiage stating that its effects are cumulative, while the bulk of the psychic powers in print do not, does indicate GW has followed their own rules as written per the 6th Ed rule set. Just because you disagree does not automatically make you correct. And since GW does appear to be following their own rules, there is no reason to hold our collective breath for an FAQ addressing something GW doesn't appear to notice is a problem.

As such, you can go on thinking different = same, while I will go on thinking different = different, because the only person whose opinion actually matters on this is the TO. If the the TO says powers stack, then I will grit my teeth and stack my powers. If the TO says powers do not stack, I just console my opponent on how things can be read in different ways while playing the game in the manner I see as correct.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
GW spells it out... in 1 place that effects from multiple uses of the same ability do not stack.

Please, do tell me where this is.

As you very well know from previous threads on this subject we've both posted in, I'm referring to pg. 32 of the BRB. The fact that there is a least one psychic with the verbiage stating that its effects are cumulative, while the bulk of the psychic powers in print do not, does indicate GW has followed their own rules as written per the 6th Ed rule set. Just because you disagree does not automatically make you correct. And since GW does appear to be following their own rules, there is no reason to hold our collective breath for an FAQ addressing something GW doesn't appear to notice is a problem.

As such, you can go on thinking different = same, while I will go on thinking different = different, because the only person whose opinion actually matters on this is the TO. If the the TO says powers stack, then I will grit my teeth and stack my powers. If the TO says powers do not stack, I just console my opponent on how things can be read in different ways while playing the game in the manner I see as correct.

SJ

Hmm, I don't see anything about psychic powers on page 32. The only thing I see is that a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. But we all know that psychic powers =/= special rules. Unless there is something I am missing?

Just the rules, which is why this is a circular argument.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just the rules, which is why this is a circular argument.

You're incorrectly citing the Special Rules section when discussing Psychic Powers.
Yes, it's a "circular argument" when one side uses relevant rules and someone else uses irrelevant rules.
It's like saying "The sky is blue." and someone else saying "Nuh uh! Ducks are brown!"

They don't stack.

the psychic powers spell it out 4 times that "different powers are cumulative" when you pick psychic powers you are told different psychers can take the SAME power.

So different psychers will use the same power. they are identical. ie not different.

As the poll was so close, We can say RAW is inconclusive, I would say RAW they don't stack. if nothing else, RAI they don't stack, They use a lot of ink making a point of different powers stack which only grants permission for different powers to stack. It's a theme to the whole rule book really, unless otherwise stated the same SRs don't stack with itself, just like the same psychic power don't stack.

sirlynchmob wrote:
the psychic powers spell it out 4 times that "different powers are cumulative" when you pick psychic powers you are told different psychers can take the SAME power.

yes it says "different powers are cumulative" but no where does it say "same powers are not cumulative".

It's a theme to the whole rule book really, unless otherwise stated the same SRs don't stack with itself, just like the same psychic power don't stack.

There is indeed a theme. As follows:

BRB p32 "A Compendium of Special Rules wrote:Unless otherwise stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative

BRB p68 "Blessings wrote:Note that bonuses and penalties from different blessings are always cumulative

I've underlined the theme in two rules. But the interesting part is the bit not underlined in the first quote, which is strangley absent from the second quote.

Whilst I personally feel that the same power from a different psyker shouldn't stack, Rigeld and Happy both seem to agree which is generally a solid argument in and of itself.

However, one thing that always bugs me during these discussions are the two powers from Codex:CSM that specifically state that multiple versions of that power stack (Gift of Contagation in the Nurgle Discipline and Symphony of Pain in the Slaanesh Discipline - Page 71). Is this simply reminder text (as the CSM book was first out of the gate for 6th), or is an exemption from the norm?

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
the psychic powers spell it out 4 times that "different powers are cumulative" when you pick psychic powers you are told different psychers can take the SAME power.

yes it says "different powers are cumulative" but no where does it say "same powers are not cumulative".

different: permission granted
same: no permission
they don't need to specify same powers are not cumulative as they are never given permission to be cumulative.

me:
It's a theme to the whole rule book really, unless otherwise stated the same SRs don't stack with itself, just like the same psychic power don't stack.

you
There is indeed a theme. As follows:

BRB p32 "A Compendium of Special Rules wrote:Unless otherwise stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative

BRB p68 "Blessings wrote:Note that bonuses and penalties from different blessings are always cumulative

I've underlined the theme in two rules. But the interesting part is the bit not underlined in the first quote, which is strangley absent from the second quote.

They spent more time on the SR's, they went the extra mile to make sure things were clear. From the wording between the two, we can infer the intent: they meant the same thing for psychic powers.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
the psychic powers spell it out 4 times that "different powers are cumulative" when you pick psychic powers you are told different psychers can take the SAME power.

yes it says "different powers are cumulative" but no where does it say "same powers are not cumulative".

different: permission granted
same: no permission
they don't need to specify same powers are not cumulative as they are never given permission to be cumulative.

Yes they are given permission to be cumulative, it is on Page 2, Multiple modifiers, that is what tells you that 4 -1(From enfeeble) -1(From a different psykers enfeeble) = 2

So 4-1-1=2 as per the BRB.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
the psychic powers spell it out 4 times that "different powers are cumulative" when you pick psychic powers you are told different psychers can take the SAME power.

yes it says "different powers are cumulative" but no where does it say "same powers are not cumulative".

different: permission granted
same: no permission
they don't need to specify same powers are not cumulative as they are never given permission to be cumulative.

Yes they are given permission to be cumulative, it is on Page 2, Multiple modifiers, that is what tells you that 4 -1(From enfeeble) -1(From a different psykers enfeeble) = 2

So 4-1-1=2 as per the BRB.

And this is why I believe your argument to be wrong.

the rules tell you what modifiers you get to use. You need to be granted the second modifier to be able to use it under multiple modifiers. You're skipping a step.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
the psychic powers spell it out 4 times that "different powers are cumulative" when you pick psychic powers you are told different psychers can take the SAME power.

yes it says "different powers are cumulative" but no where does it say "same powers are not cumulative".

different: permission granted
same: no permission
they don't need to specify same powers are not cumulative as they are never given permission to be cumulative.

The permission allowance has been demonstrated so many times.
You have permissio to cast a power and apply the effects.
You have permissionto cast the power again (with a different Psyker) and apply the effects.
Permission has been granted. At no point is it taken away.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
the psychic powers spell it out 4 times that "different powers are cumulative" when you pick psychic powers you are told different psychers can take the SAME power.

yes it says "different powers are cumulative" but no where does it say "same powers are not cumulative".

different: permission granted
same: no permission
they don't need to specify same powers are not cumulative as they are never given permission to be cumulative.

The permission allowance has been demonstrated so many times.
You have permissio to cast a power and apply the effects.
You have permissionto cast the power again (with a different Psyker) and apply the effects.
Permission has been granted. At no point is it taken away.

And you skip over the part under maledictions "bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative"
Yes it's a note, but it's a note derived from the rule "unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative"
Enfeeble says nothing about it being cumulative with itself, ergo it's not.
Therefore you only get the 1 (-1) penalty. You are never given, nor even hinted at getting a second one.
The second enfeeble is resolved and has no effect as it is not cumulative with the first one.

you skip that part and go straight to modifying characteristics.

 Quanar wrote:
Whilst I personally feel that the same power from a different psyker shouldn't stack, Rigeld and Happy both seem to agree which is generally a solid argument in and of itself.

Just because rigeld and I agree does not mean we are automatically right, although usually we are.

sirlynchmob, "bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative" does not mean bonuses and penalties from the same maledictions are not cumulative, Stop reading it that way.

 DeathReaper wrote:
sirlynchmob, "bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative" does not mean bonuses and penalties from the same maledictions are not cumulative, Stop reading it that way.

However, nowhere in the BRB does it state bonuses and/or penalties from multiple uses of the same ability are cumulative. Being a permissive rule set, which does give permission for different abilities to be cumulative, the lack of permission for same to stack pretty much means same is not cumulative. Permission to cast only equals permission to cast, because resolution has nothing to do with the casting after a power has been successfully cast. As to permission to resolve equaling permission to stack, per the BRB we are given specific permission for effects from different (not same, not any) powers to stack; the powers will still resolve, but due to the rules as written any modifiers would be applied once rather than multiple times. And don't look to page 2 for support, as there are no examples of multiples of the same modifier being applied. Page tells us the order in which GW wants us to apply different modifiers, because later on in the BRB we are told that only different modifiers are cumulative.

If you want to see actual RAW supporting stacking, you need to refer to 5th ed, not 6th.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
sirlynchmob, "bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative" does not mean bonuses and penalties from the same maledictions are not cumulative, Stop reading it that way.

However, nowhere in the BRB does it state bonuses and/or penalties from multiple uses of the same ability are cumulative. Being a permissive rule set, which does give permission for different abilities to be cumulative, the lack of permission for same to stack pretty much means same is not cumulative. Permission to cast only equals permission to cast, because resolution has nothing to do with the casting after a power has been successfully cast. As to permission to resolve equaling permission to stack, per the BRB we are given specific permission for effects from different (not same, not any) powers to stack; the powers will still resolve, but due to the rules as written any modifiers would be applied once rather than multiple times. And don't look to page 2 for support, as there are no examples of multiples of the same modifier being applied. Page tells us the order in which GW wants us to apply different modifiers, because later on in the BRB we are told that only different modifiers are cumulative.

If you want to see actual RAW supporting stacking, you need to refer to 5th ed, not 6th.

SJ

So you're ignoring multiple modifiers AND citing incorrect rules? Awesome batting average yo.

this is the enfeeble debate, this is RAW:inconclusive RAI: 50/50 you choose

 grendel083 wrote:

You have permissio to cast a power and apply the effects.
You have permissionto cast the power again (with a different Psyker) and apply the effects.
.

Both true. Where do you have permission for those two powers to act in a cumulative manner? The question is not whether you can use and resolve the power or not. The question is are those effects cumulative? If no, you resolve the second (same) power and nothing more happens.

Permission to use and resolve is not enough to prove it is cumulative.

You have two modifiers that must be applied.
Multiple Modifiers (page 2) tells us how to apply both modifiers with no conflicts.
There is no rule denying both modifiers applying.

Cite the denial.

 Abandon wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

You have permissio to cast a power and apply the effects.
You have permissionto cast the power again (with a different Psyker) and apply the effects.

Both true. Where do you have permission for those two powers to act in a cumulative manner?

Maths.
Maths gives me permission.
4-1-1=2
Not 3.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

You have permissio to cast a power and apply the effects.
You have permissionto cast the power again (with a different Psyker) and apply the effects.

Both true. Where do you have permission for those two powers to act in a cumulative manner?

Maths.
Maths gives me permission. [As noted on page 2, Multiple modifiers]
4-1-1=2
Not 3.

Added the underlined text for clarity.

rigeld2 wrote:You have two modifiers that must be applied.
Multiple Modifiers (page 2) tells us how to apply both modifiers with no conflicts.
There is no rule denying both modifiers applying.

Cite the denial.

You are jumping to conclusions here. If the powers do not act cumulatively, there is no additional modifier to apply even with both powers resolving. How the power resolves (cumulatively or non-cumulatively) determines if there are any additional modifiers.

grendel083 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

You have permissio to cast a power and apply the effects.
You have permissionto cast the power again (with a different Psyker) and apply the effects.

Both true. Where do you have permission for those two powers to act in a cumulative manner?

Maths.
Maths gives me permission.
4-1-1=2
Not 3.

Basic math only works with things that are cumulative. Assuming you can apply basic math is the same as assuming they accumulate.

(They are cumulative because of basic math) = (They are cumulative because they are cumulative)
Not a sound argument

The only argument againgst stacking as of now that has any weight is based of of interpretation that the mentioning of "same power" is taken to a literal extreme.


I'm more towards leaning to you can stack, since their is permission to stack effects given.

You can bring up the fact that it says different powers only, however how many different powers do the same stat penalty in order for stacking to even come up?

I firmly believe that an Enfeeble cast from one psycher is a different power than an enfeeble cast from another psycher since it even mentions that the brb powers are just generic versions and psychers can preform them through many different means.

Yeah i know its just fuff, but reading the fluff is how you interpret intention of the writer if rules are not clear.

 DeathReaper wrote:
sirlynchmob, "bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative" does not mean bonuses and penalties from the same maledictions are not cumulative, Stop reading it that way.

It's the only way to read it. If you are correct, then they wouldn't need to specify it over and over again in the psychic rules.

It's there, it's there for a reason. A reason you can not explain when you want to allow all powers to stack.

If all powers stack regardless of if they are the same power or not, then why restate that different powers are cumulative and restate it two more times?

it's a part of resolving the power, and it stops the same powers from stacking, it's the only reason for it to be there. So as you never have permission for enfeeble to stack with itself, you don't need a rule restricting it. So you can resolve enbeeble 100 times if you want, they are not cumulative, you only get a single -1T.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
sirlynchmob, "bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative" does not mean bonuses and penalties from the same maledictions are not cumulative, Stop reading it that way.

It's the only way to read it.

It really isn't because the Rules never actually say that ( bonuses and penalties from the same maledictions are not cumulative)

permissive ruleset says that we have permission to cast enfeeble twice on the same unit, we have permission, through page 2, to use math, ergo they stack unless the permission is restricted in some rule. Can you cite a rule that says ( bonuses and penalties from the same maledictions are not cumulative)

If you are correct, then they wouldn't need to specify it over and over again in the psychic rules.

It's there, it's there for a reason. A reason you can not explain when you want to allow all powers to stack.

If all powers stack regardless of if they are the same power or not, then why restate that different powers are cumulative and restate it two more times?

it's a part of resolving the power, and it stops the same powers from stacking, it's the only reason for it to be there. So as you never have permission for enfeeble to stack with itself, you don't need a rule restricting it. So you can resolve enbeeble 100 times if you want, they are not cumulative, you only get a single -1T.

They write redundant rules all the time, they do not need to specify things twice, but sometimes they do. That is the reason it is there, redundancy.

the underlined needs a rules citation to be valid.

For those arguing that affirming that different powers stack magically stops the same power from stacking, you are wrong, you have been proven wrong, and dully repeating the same disproved argument does not make you appear right, it makes you appear moronic.

The basic rules clearly support the ability to cast and resolve multiple iterations of the same power on a single target, the real reason why Enfeeble might not stack is because of the wording "Whilst the power is in effect". Does "the power" mean that casting of the power or the power in and of itself? Feel free to argue, I'm going with "I don't know, lol".

 PrinceRaven wrote:
For those arguing that affirming that different powers stack magically stops the same power from stacking, you are wrong, you have been proven wrong, and dully repeating the same disproved argument does not make you appear right, it makes you appear moronic.

The basic rules clearly support the ability to cast and resolve multiple iterations of the same power on a single target, the real reason why Enfeeble might not stack is because of the wording "Whilst the power is in effect". Does "the power" mean that casting of the power or the power in and of itself? Feel free to argue, I'm going with "I don't know, lol".

Im going with the first option myself. It is definately refferring to that singular casting of the power and not the power itself.

Eihnlazer wrote:
The only argument againgst stacking as of now that has any weight is based of of interpretation that the mentioning of "same power" is taken to a literal extreme.


I'm more towards leaning to you can stack, since their is permission to stack effects given.

You can bring up the fact that it says different powers only, however how many different powers do the same stat penalty in order for stacking to even come up?

I firmly believe that an Enfeeble cast from one psycher is a different power than an enfeeble cast from another psycher since it even mentions that the brb powers are just generic versions and psychers can preform them through many different means.

Yeah i know its just fuff, but reading the fluff is how you interpret intention of the writer if rules are not clear.

How is determining what GW considers 'different' and 'same' powers taking it to an extreme?

The only line of logic that has been presented as such permission I have shown to be flawed.

I don't own all the codices so i couldn't say. Does not effect what the rules say anyway.

Fluff is just fluff.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every reason given so far as to why 'same powers' should be treated cumulatively is in actuality based on an incorrect RAW definition of 'different power', flat-out assumption or use of circular reasoning.

To sum it up:

"different Psykers in the same army can have the same psychic power(s)." page 418 BRB
Different Psyker - still the same power
"Psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more"than once each turn..." page 67 BRB
Different 'casting' - still the same power

'you're allowed to resolve each power both times so the effects happen twice and the modifiers need to be applied twice'
A flat-out assumption that they are handled in a cumulative fashion

'basic math says they stack'
Circular reasoning, basic math only works with things that are cumulative.

The crux of the disagreement is what constitutes "different" psychic powers.

Argument A would have you believe that a psychic power is different if it manifested using a different psychic test. Either a later test from the same psyker or a different psyker all together.

Argument B would have you believe that a psychic power is only different if it has a different name.

While its not 100% clear what is "different" by RAW I feel fairly confident Argument B is correct. Pg67 tells us a psyker cannon manifest the same psychic power more then once each turn. For this to make sense being the same/different needs to be determined by the power's name not when it was manifested.

The second disagreement stems from the fact that bonus or penalties from different powers of a given type are always cumulative.

Argument A would have you believe that all powers stack.

Argument B would have you believe only powers with different names stack.

Neither is correct. A psychic power that produces a characteristic modifier will stack with other manifestations of the same psychic power unless specifically stated otherwise in the power. The statements that different powers of a given type are always cumulative does not mean that two manifestations of the same power are never cumulative . It also does not mean that all manifestations of psychic powers of a given type will always be cumulative. It only means that two different powers of a given type will never specify that they do not stack with each other. This is why its in a note, its just a reminder of how things will work and is not in itself making a rule.

Pg 2 give different manifestations for the same power permission to stack. That permission can be revoked by the power itself. The notes on pgs 68-69 only serve to remind us that powers of given type will never revoke this for other powers of that same type.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Neither is correct. A psychic power that produces a characteristic modifier will stack with other manifestations of the same psychic power unless specifically stated otherwise in the power. The statements that different powers of a given type are always cumulative does not mean that two manifestations of the same power are never cumulative . It also does not mean that all manifestations of psychic powers of a given type will always be cumulative. It only means that two different powers of a given type will never specify that they do not stack with each other. This is why its in a note, its just a reminder of how things will work and is not in itself making a rule.

The above statement is incorrect. Permission is only given for modifiers from different Blessings and Malediction to be cumulative, unless otherwise noted within a specific psychic power's rules. There are at least 2 psychic powers printed in 6th Edition codexes what have verbiage telling us that multiple uses of those powers are cumulative. As a counter point, the majority of psychic powers in the the game do not include verbiage allowing effects to be cumulative.

The crux of the issue is the Side A thinks "different castings of Same powers = Different powers", while Side B thinks "different castings of Same powers = Same powers".

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Permission is only given for modifiers from different Blessings and Malediction to be cumulative, unless otherwise noted within a specific psychic power's rules.

Page 2 grants permission for all modifiers from all sources to be cumulative.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Permission is only given for modifiers from different Blessings and Malediction to be cumulative, unless otherwise noted within a specific psychic power's rules.

Page 2 grants permission for all modifiers from all sources to be cumulative.

Citation, please.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Permission is only given for modifiers from different Blessings and Malediction to be cumulative, unless otherwise noted within a specific psychic power's rules.

Page 2 grants permission for all modifiers from all sources to be cumulative.

Citation, please.

SJ

Page 2, where is discusses Multiple modifiers, he did cite it...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Permission is only given for modifiers from different Blessings and Malediction to be cumulative, unless otherwise noted within a specific psychic power's rules.

Page 2 grants permission for all modifiers from all sources to be cumulative.

Citation, please.

SJ

Page 2, where is discusses Multiple modifiers, he did cite it...

No he didn't. Nowhere on pg. 2 does it state that multiple modifiers from the same source are cumulative. I challenge anyone to quote a passage from the BRB that states multiple modifiers from the same source are cumulative. Find one example, just one, and you will win this argument. If you cannot quote a single passage stating this, then you literally have nothing to support your position.

SJ

 DJGietzen wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Permission is only given for modifiers from different Blessings and Malediction to be cumulative, unless otherwise noted within a specific psychic power's rules.

Page 2 grants permission for all modifiers from all sources to be cumulative.

And permission to apply additional modifiers from a second source that is not permitted to act cumulatively with the first? Page 2 only comes into play if any additional modifiers are applied. Applying additional modifiers requires the powers to be cumulative and such permission is not granted.

If the BRB said nothing about any power being cumulative I'd agree.
The default way of thinking about things is cumulatively because that is the way most things work and in most cases can be assumed. 1 + 1 = 2, four apples minus three apples equals one apple, etc. Not everything works like that though and if GW is going to specify that some things do work that way on what basis do we declare all of it works that way unless otherwise stated? In essence, we cannot reasonably assume 'stacking' because they actually tells us what stacks(modifiers, different psychic powers, wounds, etc).

Yes, modifiers stack but if the effect that causes those modifiers does not then additional application of that effect creates no new modifiers to stack. Adding anything in addition to the first application of the power requires permission that is not granted in the case of 'same' psychic powers. Essentially, if modifiers were applied they would stack per page 2 but why are you applying more modifiers from powers are not permitted stack?

Nothing new in this thread...

jeffersonian000 wrote:cumulative. I challenge anyone to quote a passage from the BRB that states multiple modifiers from the same source are cumulative. Find one example, just one, and you will win this argument. If you cannot quote a single passage stating this, then you literally have nothing to support your position.

SJ

Well, given multiple modifiers are cumulative, and it places no limits on source, then yes, it has been cited

YOu are looking, yet again, for a restriction that doesnt exist in the actual rules, and making up a requirement that also doesnt exist in the written rules

Yep, nothing new in this thread.

And you, sir, yet again fail to back up your statement with evidence.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And you, sir, yet again fail to back up your statement with evidence.

By quoting a rule that actually backs it up?
Yeah, shame on him...

Again really guys?

Do powers stack? Well the "different powers do stack" statement is clearly irrelevant from a RAW perspective (though not from an RAI perspective), no matter how much Sirlynch wants it to matter.

However if "Enfeeble" is the example (and I believe all new powers that work this way have the same wording), it has the wording "whilst this power is in effect" therefore no matter how many times you cast the power it is in effect and therefore you are at -1 toughness.

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And you, sir, yet again fail to back up your statement with evidence.

By quoting a rule that actually backs it up?
Yeah, shame on him...

Try reading. He did not quite a rule.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And you, sir, yet again fail to back up your statement with evidence.

By quoting a rule that actually backs it up?
Yeah, shame on him...

Try reading. He did not quite a rule.

Try reading. He referenced multiple modifiers.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And you, sir, yet again fail to back up your statement with evidence.

By quoting a rule that actually backs it up?
Yeah, shame on him...

Try reading. He did not quite a rule.

SJ

I provided evidence, by citing the multiple modifiers rule. Said rule states the multiple modifiers are cumulative according to the normal rules of mathematics, and place no limit on source of the modifiers.

So yes, I provided evidence. I have p[rovided the evidence that the actual rules do not require the source of the modifier to be different, blue or made of cheese, just that they are a) multiple and b) are modifiers.

WHen you can cite an actual rule requiring that multiple modifiers must be from different sources, please respond.

The issue is not if multiple modifiers are cumulative. It is if we have multiple modifiers.

How ever many times Enfeeble is cast it is in effect thus one modifier of -1.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The issue is not if multiple modifiers are cumulative. It is if we have multiple modifiers.

How ever many times Enfeeble is cast it is in effect thus one modifier of -1.

Bear in mind that the original question wasn't about Enfeeble.
Not all blessings/maledictions have the "while in effect" wording.

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The issue is not if multiple modifiers are cumulative. It is if we have multiple modifiers.

How ever many times Enfeeble is cast it is in effect thus one modifier of -1.

Bear in mind that the original question wasn't about Enfeeble.
Not all blessings/maledictions have the "while in effect" wording.

I fairly certain all the powers that apply modifiers to stats are worded that way (please correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think there's any coherent RAW argument against powers without that wording stacking. However as I say I believe all the relevant powers contain that wording.

Hammerhand, Might of Titan, any of the Eldar Runes of Battle, and possibly a few others. I only looked into those two and they both do not contain the "Whilst" wording.

Runes of battle do indeed have the "whilst this power is in effect" language. I believe all 6th ed powers have the wording sorry I should have been more clear. I'd certainly assume Hammerhand stacks with itself ditto for might.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Runes of battle do indeed have the "whilst this power is in effect" language. I believe all 6th ed powers have the wording sorry I should have been more clear. I'd certainly assume Hammerhand stacks with itself ditto for might.

6th Edition powers that do not use that verbiage:

Chaos Space Marines: Gift of Contagion (however, it does specify it stacks with itself)
Eldar: Horrify

Gift of contagion doesn't have the verbiage but does stack with itself (coincidence?) I don't have my codex on me but I'm 95% certain horrify does contain that verbiage. If not then it stacks inmy book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry just checked and Gift does have the verbiage. Which makes me more sure on Horrify.

Sorry, you are correct. GoC does have it. That only leaves Horrify in the Eldar codex.

Hysterically Frenzy (Slaanesh power) does use this wording.

Yeah just checked horrify and you're right. Embolden rather bizarrely does contain that verbiage...

I can see no reason that Horrify wouldn't stack with itself RAW. However I'd argue there is a very strong RaI argument that it doesn't. Given that no other 6th Ed powers work that way and that gift needs to specify it does stack with itself. Plus the repeated reminders that different powers do stack is an implication that the same powers shouldn't. For be that is enough evidence that 6th Ed powers that don't specify they stack with themselves don't.

The GK powers were written for a previous edition and seem to stack with themselves fine.

Wording of specific powers or whether or not modifiers stack does not really answer the OPs question. Specific powers may follow the general rules or be exceptions and of course modifier stack. The question is the psychic powers generally stack?

We all agree different powers are permitted to stack but I've yet to see anyone show that 'same' powers do so. Please address my last post or we'll have to assume no one has any sound argument to support 'same' powers stacking.

 Abandon wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Permission is only given for modifiers from different Blessings and Malediction to be cumulative, unless otherwise noted within a specific psychic power's rules.

Page 2 grants permission for all modifiers from all sources to be cumulative.

And permission to apply additional modifiers from a second source that is not permitted to act cumulatively with the first? Page 2 only comes into play if any additional modifiers are applied. Applying additional modifiers requires the powers to be cumulative and such permission is not granted.

But permission is granted, I will explain, no that will take too long, I will sum up:

Page 2 specifies that you use normal math, therefore 4+1 (For hammerhand) and _1 (From an IC that casts hammerhand) stacks because of multiple modifiers and the fact that there is an allowance to cast both of those psychic powers.

Now find something that says they do not stack.

If the BRB said nothing about any power being cumulative I'd agree.
The default way of thinking about things is cumulatively because that is the way most things work and in most cases can be assumed. 1 + 1 = 2, four apples minus three apples equals one apple, etc. Not everything works like that though

But page 2 specifies that this is the way it works, for everything in 40K, unless there is a specific restriction. For Hammerhand there is not a specific restriction.

and if GW is going to specify that some things do work that way on what basis do we declare all of it works that way unless otherwise stated?

When we look at, and understand, what Page 2 says. Then we realize that something saying it stacks is just a reminder.

In essence, we cannot reasonably assume 'stacking' because they actually tells us what stacks(modifiers, different psychic powers, wounds, etc).

Yes, modifiers stack but if the effect that causes those modifiers does not then additional application of that effect creates no new modifiers to stack. Adding anything in addition to the first application of the power requires permission that is not granted in the case of 'same' psychic powers. Essentially, if modifiers were applied they would stack per page 2 but why are you applying more modifiers from powers are not permitted stack?

Except that all things stack, as per page 2, unless there is a specific restriction on it stacking.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Again really guys?

Do powers stack? Well the "different powers do stack" statement is clearly irrelevant from a RAW perspective (though not from an RAI perspective), no matter how much Sirlynch wants it to matter.

However if "Enfeeble" is the example (and I believe all new powers that work this way have the same wording), it has the wording "whilst this power is in effect" therefore no matter how many times you cast the power it is in effect and therefore you are at -1 toughness.

So you disagree with my method of arriving at the conclusion. Yet agree with my conclusion. Interesting.

They are relevant in that if all powers stacked, they wouldn't need to be stated at all. Nor restated 2 more times. They help set the dichotomy that you have "same" powers and "different" powers, only one of which is stated to have permission to be cumulative.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Permission is only given for modifiers from different Blessings and Malediction to be cumulative, unless otherwise noted within a specific psychic power's rules.

Page 2 grants permission for all modifiers from all sources to be cumulative.

And permission to apply additional modifiers from a second source that is not permitted to act cumulatively with the first? Page 2 only comes into play if any additional modifiers are applied. Applying additional modifiers requires the powers to be cumulative and such permission is not granted.

But permission is granted, I will explain, no that will take too long, I will sum up:

Page 2 specifies that you use normal math, therefore 4+1 (For hammerhand) and _1 (From an IC that casts hammerhand) stacks because of multiple modifiers and the fact that there is an allowance to cast both of those psychic powers.

Now find something that says they do not stack.

If the BRB said nothing about any power being cumulative I'd agree.
The default way of thinking about things is cumulatively because that is the way most things work and in most cases can be assumed. 1 + 1 = 2, four apples minus three apples equals one apple, etc. Not everything works like that though

But page 2 specifies that this is the way it works, for everything in 40K, unless there is a specific restriction. For Hammerhand there is not a specific restriction.

and if GW is going to specify that some things do work that way on what basis do we declare all of it works that way unless otherwise stated?

When we look at, and understand, what Page 2 says. Then we realize that something saying it stacks is just a reminder.

In essence, we cannot reasonably assume 'stacking' because they actually tells us what stacks(modifiers, different psychic powers, wounds, etc).

Yes, modifiers stack but if the effect that causes those modifiers does not then additional application of that effect creates no new modifiers to stack. Adding anything in addition to the first application of the power requires permission that is not granted in the case of 'same' psychic powers. Essentially, if modifiers were applied they would stack per page 2 but why are you applying more modifiers from powers are not permitted stack?

Except that all things stack, as per page 2, unless there is a specific restriction on it stacking.

Page 2 says modifiers stack, not psychic powers.
"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic..." page 2 BRB
First prove that 'same' psychic powers work in combination(AKA they stack) then we cam let page 2 take it from there.

Second psychic power has permission to be cast. Agreed?
Second psychic power has permission to resolve. Agreed?
Second psychic power now needs to apply a modifier. Find the denial.

rigeld2 wrote:
Second psychic power has permission to be cast. Agreed?
Second psychic power has permission to resolve. Agreed?
Second psychic power now needs to apply a modifier. Find the denial.

While all three points are true, you are mistaken that resolution equals cumulative. Its perfectly legal for a resolved ability to have no effect on a target, example: Enfeeble on a Chimera. Pg. 2 only tells us the order of operations for applying modifiers; nowhere on pg. 2 is permission granted for any abilities to stack. Pg. 32 is the very first mention of multiple uses of same ability, which is specifically denied permission to stack. Pg. 68 gives specific permission for morifiers from multiple different sources to stack. Not multiples uses of the same ability, but multiple uses of different abilities.

Where is permission to stack given? In the last FAQ published for 5th edition, which was superseded by the first 6th edition FAQ, an FAQ that makes absolutely no mention of stacking modifiers.

SJ

rigeld2 wrote:
Second psychic power has permission to be cast. Agreed?
Second psychic power has permission to resolve. Agreed?
Second psychic power now needs to apply a modifier. Find the denial.

Yes.
Yes.
No. Acting non-cumulatively (as it is not permitted to act cumulatively) it has no additional effect beyond the first.

The second does not need to apply a modifier for the power to resolve. Case in point you use and resolve Enfeeble on a vehicle but it does not get -1T... You don't need to apply the modifier for the power to resolve.

Assuming the second use of the power in any way adds to the first is by definition assuming they are cumulative. Letting go of that assumption means the second use of the power will have no additional modifier to add.

You use Enfeeble on unit X 3 times
1. Non-Cumulatively: Unit X is under the effects of Enfeeble.
2. Cumulatively: Unit X is under the effects of 3 Enfeebles.

Double post

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Second psychic power has permission to be cast. Agreed?
Second psychic power has permission to resolve. Agreed?
Second psychic power now needs to apply a modifier. Find the denial.

While all three points are true, you are mistaken that resolution equals cumulative. Its perfectly legal for a resolved ability to have no effect on a target, example: Enfeeble on a Chimera. Pg. 2 only tells us the order of operations for applying modifiers; nowhere on pg. 2 is permission granted for any abilities to stack. Pg. 32 is the very first mention of multiple uses of same ability, which is specifically denied permission to stack. Pg. 68 gives specific permission for morifiers from multiple different sources to stack. Not multiples uses of the same ability, but multiple uses of different abilities.

Why do you assert that Enfeeble has no effect on a Chimera?
Please stop bringing up page 32 - you've never shown its relevance an continue to fail to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:
Case in point you use and resolve Enfeeble on a vehicle but it does not get -1T... You don't need to apply the modifier for the power to resolve.

The vehicle comparison still isn't relevant no matter how many times it's brought up.

Assuming the second use of the power in any way adds to the first is by definition assuming they are cumulative. Letting go of that assumption means the second use of the power will have no additional modifier to add.

Thanks for explaining the equivalent of 1+1.

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Second psychic power has permission to be cast. Agreed?
Second psychic power has permission to resolve. Agreed?
Second psychic power now needs to apply a modifier. Find the denial.

Yes.
Yes.
No. Acting non-cumulatively (as it is not permitted to act cumulatively) it has no additional effect beyond the first.

Point 3 in Incorrect. Page 2 gives us permission for modifiers to be cumulative due to Maths.

Please quote the passage on pg. 2 that tells us modifiers are cumulative due to maths. I'm not seeing it, but you seem so sure its there.

SJ

rigeld2 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:
Case in point you use and resolve Enfeeble on a vehicle but it does not get -1T... You don't need to apply the modifier for the power to resolve.

The vehicle comparison still isn't relevant no matter how many times it's brought up.

Assuming the second use of the power in any way adds to the first is by definition assuming they are cumulative. Letting go of that assumption means the second use of the power will have no additional modifier to add.

Thanks for explaining the equivalent of 1+1.

If your going to assert that its modifiers need to be applied for a power to resolve it's absolutely relevant.

So you admit your just assuming they stack without basis by not actually addressing the point at all... find permission to apply additional modifiers without the pyschic powers acting cumulatively as your basis. Thus far you have indicated that they are cumulative because they are cumulative. I'm sure you understand the flaw in that line of thinking and why i do not accept it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Second psychic power has permission to be cast. Agreed?
Second psychic power has permission to resolve. Agreed?
Second psychic power now needs to apply a modifier. Find the denial.

Yes.
Yes.
No. Acting non-cumulatively (as it is not permitted to act cumulatively) it has no additional effect beyond the first.

Point 3 in Incorrect. Page 2 gives us permission for modifiers to be cumulative due to Maths.

Did I say modifiers are not cumulative? Did I mention modifiers at all in my post?

Page 2 is irrelevant until you can prove that a second effect comes about from a second use of the same power. To do that you need to show that two of the same psychic powers are cumulative which you have failed to do so far.

While there are some pure RAW arguments, I really don't see any good faith RAI arguments for same powers stacking. Printing three times that different powers stack and specifically printing allowance for few specific powers to stack, is to me a clear enough indication that they didn't intend same powers to normally stack.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Please quote the passage on pg. 2 that tells us modifiers are cumulative due to maths. I'm not seeing it, but you seem so sure its there.

SJ

Right here, Page 2: "If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values" Applying two +1'to a Score of 4 = (Lets do the Maths) 4+1+1=? (Hint not 5).

Hammerhand modifies a characteristic so when one HH is cast you "apply any multipliers" (But there are none currently)," then apply any additions" (Okay, got a +1 here) "and finally apply any set values" (no set values) so the Str is 4+1

When HH is cast again from an IC in the same unit we follow the same process, applying another +1 raising the Str to 6.

 Crimson wrote:
While there are some pure RAW arguments, I really don't see any good faith RAI arguments for same powers stacking. Printing three times that different powers stack and specifically printing allowance for few specific powers to stack, is to me a clear enough indication that they didn't intend same powers to normally stack.

QTF unfortunately most people on this forum don't care about the actual rules and only care about RAW. It is their firm belief that the GW design team did not design the rules.

 Abandon wrote:
If your going to assert that its modifiers need to be applied for a power to resolve it's absolutely relevant.

It's not. There's a difference between not being able to because there's no T attribute to modify and your assertion that it can't stack ... Because why again? The former isn't relevant to the discussion no matter how many times you bring it up.

So you admit your just assuming they stack without basis by not actually addressing the point at all... find permission to apply additional modifiers without the pyschic powers acting cumulatively as your basis. Thus far you have indicated that they are cumulative because they are cumulative. I'm sure you understand the flaw in that line of thinking and why i do not accept it.

They are cumulative because there is no rule denying that they are cumulative.
The power has permission to resolve. It attempts to apply -1T. Cite the denial - you keep asserting it's there, but you've not proven it ever. Despite being asked repeatedly.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
While there are some pure RAW arguments, I really don't see any good faith RAI arguments for same powers stacking. Printing three times that different powers stack and specifically printing allowance for few specific powers to stack, is to me a clear enough indication that they didn't intend same powers to normally stack.

QTF unfortunately most people on this forum don't care about the actual rules and only care about RAW. It is their firm belief that the GW design team did not design the rules.

(Emphasis mine).
Do I really have to point out what is wrong with the underlined?

Yes you do. But if so please do it by PM let's not derail this thread.

Fling has a habit of lying about how other people look at rules.
It's the reason I have him on ignore.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes you do. But if so please do it by PM let's not derail this thread.

RAW are the actual rules. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes you do. But if so please do it by PM let's not derail this thread.

RAW are the actual rules. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

Let's not get into this again. But to claim that saying "the rules are what the GW design team designed" is disingenuous is a fairly bizarre statement.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes you do. But if so please do it by PM let's not derail this thread.

RAW are the actual rules. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

Let's not get into this again. But to claim that saying "the rules are what the GW design team designed" is disingenuous is a fairly bizarre statement.

Except that is not what I said.

I said your statement:

 FlingitNow wrote:
most people on this forum don't care about the actual rules and only care about RAW.

Was not correct and it is is disingenuous to say so.

The Actual rules are RAW, RAW stands for Rules as Written, thus the actual rules and RAW are interchangeable.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
If your going to assert that its modifiers need to be applied for a power to resolve it's absolutely relevant.

It's not. There's a difference between not being able to because there's no T attribute to modify and your assertion that it can't stack ... Because why again? The former isn't relevant to the discussion no matter how many times you bring it up.

So you admit your just assuming they stack without basis by not actually addressing the point at all... find permission to apply additional modifiers without the pyschic powers acting cumulatively as your basis. Thus far you have indicated that they are cumulative because they are cumulative. I'm sure you understand the flaw in that line of thinking and why i do not accept it.

They are cumulative because there is no rule denying that they are cumulative.
The power has permission to resolve. It attempts to apply -1T. Cite the denial - you keep asserting it's there, but you've not proven it ever. Despite being asked repeatedly.

So we have established you don't need to apply all its effects for a power to resolve. I never said modifiers don't stack which you would know because I have said it several times if you had actually been trying to comprehend my point. I'm contesting applying any of the effects (including modifiers) of a second use of the same psychic power. Before you would even get to applying modifiers you need determine the effects of the power on the unit and I'm saying the second power has no effect because it is not cumulative with the first so when the second power resolves, nothing happens.

Two Enfeebles are not cumulative so resolving a second one does not add any modifiers nor any other additional effects.

 Abandon wrote:

You use Enfeeble on unit X 3 times
1. Non-Cumulatively: Unit X is under the effects of Enfeeble.
2. Cumulatively: Unit X is under the effects of 3 Enfeebles.

#1 Per RAW is how 'same' psychic powers work. They are not permitted to accumulate unlike different powers so they do not stack up. Find permission for them to behave that way and you get #2. Until then it does not matter how many modifiers you would get out of it, 'same' powers do not work in combination, basic math will not apply, etc. because adding an Enfeeble on top of an existing Enfeeble non-cumulatively just gets you Enfeeble. Since it is not cumulative it does not create any additional effects from further applications. In the case of Enfeeble that means no additional modifiers.

#2 You use X number of Enfeebles on a unit you get to resolve it X times and it should therefore have it's effects applied X times to the unit. This is exactly how it would work if you could prove 'same' powers are cumulative.

You are saying it's cumulative because of #2 when in fact #2 is how you handle things that are cumulative. Essentially stating that you handle it cumulatively because you that is how you handle things cumulatively. Permission to use and resolve the power twice actually says nothing about how the two uses of the power interact.

 Abandon wrote:
So we have established you don't need to apply all its effects for a power to resolve.

And that you need a reason to not apply the effects. You've failed to provide one.

Two Enfeebles are not cumulative so resolving a second one does not add any modifiers nor any other additional effects.

And of course you have evidence to back up this assertion - you haven't provided any yet, so I'll just assume you forgot to. Would you mind providing it now?

You are saying it's cumulative because of #2 when in fact #2 is how you handle things that are cumulative. Essentially stating that you handle it cumulatively because you that is how you handle things cumulatively. Permission to use and resolve the power twice actually says nothing about how the two uses of the power interact.

What happens when Enfeeble resolves? Please answer this question. It should be trivial and not require more than 1 sentence.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
So we have established you don't need to apply all its effects for a power to resolve.

And that you need a reason to not apply the effects. You've failed to provide one.

Two Enfeebles are not cumulative so resolving a second one does not add any modifiers nor any other additional effects.

And of course you have evidence to back up this assertion - you haven't provided any yet, so I'll just assume you forgot to. Would you mind providing it now?

You are saying it's cumulative because of #2 when in fact #2 is how you handle things that are cumulative. Essentially stating that you handle it cumulatively because you that is how you handle things cumulatively. Permission to use and resolve the power twice actually says nothing about how the two uses of the power interact.

What happens when Enfeeble resolves? Please answer this question. It should be trivial and not require more than 1 sentence.

Reason: Not cumulative with existing effect.

Permissive rule set. You need permission to treat things cumulatively as the BRB does in fact assert what is cumulative.

An overly general question for a very specific situation so I can only sum it up in a similar nature in one sentence.
>>>It applies what effects it is allowed to.<<<
What was the point of asking that question? I've already covered this. In the case of a second use of the same power, nothing is permitted to happen because they are not cumulative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Without the circular reasoning, please tell us what makes them act cumulatively?

And permission to resolve the power by accumulating has been given - it is a modifier, and page 2 tells you that youu follow the normal rules of maths when applying modifiers.

It is a bizarre idea of "RAW" to deny that the permission is there, and point to reminders elsewhere to create a non-existent additional requirement.

If you are told to add 1 twice, please explain why page 2 does not result in +2. With actual rules, for once.

Was not correct and it is is disingenuous to say so.

The Actual rules are RAW, RAW stands for Rules as Written, thus the actual rules and RAW are interchangeable.

I've sent you a PM to explain why RAW and RAI are not interchangeable as you claim here I don't want to derail this thread.

 Abandon wrote:

An overly general question for a very specific situation so I can only sum it up in a similar nature in one sentence.
>>>It applies what effects it is allowed to.<<<
What was the point of asking that question? I've already covered this. In the case of a second use of the same power, nothing is permitted to happen because they are not cumulative.

And where is there a restriction on what effects it is allowed to apply if it's the second casting?
Enfeeble attempts to add -1T. Is there any rule covering what happens when adding more than one modifier?

Pg. 2 tells us the order of operations for applying modifiers as a general rule.

Pg. 32 informs us that when abilities change or bend general rules, specific restrictions are followed which includes the statement that multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative without specific permission found in individual abilities. Further, psychic powers are listed as falling under these rules.

Pg. 68 reminds us that modifiers from different powers are cumulative, and that specific permission noted in a power is required for that power to be cumulative with itself.

At no point in the BRB is there found verbiage indicating "modifiers from multiple uses of the same ability are cumulative", nor verbiage indicating "same ability used by different models on the same target are cumulative". As this is a permissive rules set, and permission is specifically denied for multiple uses of the same ability to be cumulative while permission is give for different abilities that grant the same modifier to be cumulative, there is no evidence to support a power stacking with itself from multiple castings without specific permission to do so. We know of two powers so far that include such verbiage. There are several abilities that grant similar modifiers that include verbiage informing us that they are cumulative with other abilities granting the same or similar modifier, such as Stealth and Shroud, or Hammerhand and Might of Titan.

Enough precedent has been set within the rules as written to show how and when similar modifiers can be applied, and enough precedent has been set within RAW to restrict abilities from being cumulative without specific permission.

Unless the "Stackers" can quote an actual rule that states castings from different casters equal different powers and therefore the modifiers are cumulative, then they are flat wrong. Stating "pg. 2 gives us permission to do maths = same powers are cumulative" is not a rules supported argument when we are told which modifiers are allowed to be applied on pages 32 and 68. The argument that pg. 32 does not apply is bogus because pg. 32 informs us that the rules contained in that section apply to all abilities in that section, which psychic powers are listed as both falling under those rules and having additional rules of their own, to which we get the restrictions on pg. 68. Permission to resolve is irrelevant as resolution has no effect on application, given the restrictions listed on pages 32 and 68.

We can keep going in circles all you want, but the "Stackers" need to bring their A-game if they want to win this one.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Pg. 32 informs us that when abilities change or bend general rules, specific restrictions are followed which includes the statement that multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative without specific permission found in individual abilities. Further, psychic powers are listed as falling under these rules.

The bolded is absolutely false or deliberately misleading. The actual quote is:

Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers,scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain.

As such, page 32 has no relevancy.

We can keep going in circles all you want, but the "Stackers" need to bring their A-game if they want to win this one.

How about you have a discussion using accurate rules quotes instead of made up things that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand? Maybe then I'll pay attention to what you say, but when you quote page 32 I automatically discount your argument.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Pg. 2 tells us the order of operations for applying modifiers as a general rule.

For applying multiple modifiers, with no restriction on source. Can you agree that there is no restriction onthe source of the multiple modifiers? Simple yes or no will suffice

jeffersonian000 wrote:Pg. 32 informs us that when abilities change or bend general rules, specific restrictions are followed which includes the statement that multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative without specific permission found in individual abilities. Further, psychic powers are listed as falling under these rules.

A deliberately misleading statement, given that page 32 talks about special rules, and you know full well, having been corrected on this many times, that psychic powers are not special rules.

PLease provide ACTUAL written rules, NOT rules you have made up, that shows that the page 2 allowance to perform 4+1+1 = 6 is overturned because the multiple modifiers have come from repeated application of the same psychic power.

Refusal to do so will be treated as a concession that your position is not RAW.

Thank you both for posting no rules to support your statements, proving my point. Good day!

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Thank you both for posting no rules to support your statements, proving my point. Good day!

Page 67 (iirc) gives me permission to resolve the power.
The power requires that I apply a -1T.
Find a reason I can't. Vehicles have one. Does a Paladin unit that is inflicted with Enfeeble already? If so, please cite one.

The power requires that I apply a -1T.

This is the sticking point as Enfeeble does not require this.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Thank you both for posting no rules to support your statements, proving my point. Good day!

Page 67 (iirc) gives me permission to resolve the power.
The power requires that I apply a -1T.
Find a reason I can't. Vehicles have one. Does a Paladin unit that is inflicted with Enfeeble already? If so, please cite one.

"Whilst this power is in effect ..."

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Thank you both for posting no rules to support your statements, proving my point. Good day!

Page 67 (iirc) gives me permission to resolve the power.
The power requires that I apply a -1T.
Find a reason I can't. Vehicles have one. Does a Paladin unit that is inflicted with Enfeeble already? If so, please cite one.

"Whilst this power is in effect ..."

This power being that casting of the power, or any power named Enfeeble?

If I Enfeeble 2 different units, do they both suffer -1T?

I think it depends on how the power itself is written. If it says "The target unit is inflicted with XXXXXXX. XXXXXXX gives a -1 XXXXXXXX" then it shouldnt stack. if it says "The target gets -1 armor save" then it should stack. This of course may cause some powers to stack and some to not. still winds up 50/50

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Thank you both for posting no rules to support your statements, proving my point. Good day!

SJ

I cast hammerhand. I cast hammer hand again, from an IC.

Find the restriction on applying the second +1.

Oh, and we posted rules, by showing how your posited rules argument restricting page 2 didnt apply. Meaning page 2 still applies.

I have permission to Multipl(y) Modify characteristics from Page 2. Find where this permission is removed. Page and paragraph. Note: page 32 doesnt work, as you have been told. Continuing to point to page 32 is further acceptance by yourself thgat you are failing to argue using actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Thank you both for posting no rules to support your statements, proving my point. Good day!

Page 67 (iirc) gives me permission to resolve the power.
The power requires that I apply a -1T.
Find a reason I can't. Vehicles have one. Does a Paladin unit that is inflicted with Enfeeble already? If so, please cite one.

"Whilst this power is in effect ..."

This power being that casting of the power, or any power named Enfeeble?

If I Enfeeble 2 different units, do they both suffer -1T?

I was referring to verbiage, in that Enfeeble does not include verbiage giving permission for its effects to be cumulative, and in fact tells us that whilst a unit is Enfeebled it suffers a specific effect. No matter how many times a until is Enfeebled, it only suffers the effects once during the power's duration.

As to one caster placing the same power on two separate target units, what do the rules tell us? An IC attached to a unit that receive the effects of a malediction and then leaves the unit while the power us still in effect, the IC is still effected. You know, the whole "whilst this power is in effect ..." and that.

Interestingly enough, a case can be made for removing an existing effect after a successful Deny the Witch from an additional casting of the same power. But that's for another thread.

SJ

 FlingitNow wrote:

Was not correct and it is is disingenuous to say so.

The Actual rules are RAW, RAW stands for Rules as Written, thus the actual rules and RAW are interchangeable.

I've sent you a PM to explain why RAW and RAI are not interchangeable as you claim here I don't want to derail this thread.

I never said anything about RAI, I just said that The Actual rules are RAW (Rules as Written) what else would they be?

(Not to derail the thread, taking this to PM).

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

I was referring to verbiage, in that Enfeeble does not include verbiage giving permission for its effects to be cumulative, and in fact tells us that whilst a unit is Enfeebled it suffers a specific effect. No matter how many times a until is Enfeebled, it only suffers the effects once during the power's duration.

I'm aware of what you were referring to. You also declined to answer my question - how do you define "this power"? This specific casting (Enfeeble_001) or any spell named Enfeeble?

As to one caster placing the same power on two separate target units, what do the rules tell us? An IC attached to a unit that receive the effects of a malediction and then leaves the unit while the power us still in effect, the IC is still effected. You know, the whole "whilst this power is in effect ..." and that.

That's not what I asked. Please answer questions that I ask and not what you pretend I asked.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Thank you both for posting no rules to support your statements, proving my point. Good day!

SJ

I cast hammerhand. I cast hammer hand again, from an IC.

Find the restriction on applying the second +1.

Oh, and we posted rules, by showing how your posited rules argument restricting page 2 didnt apply. Meaning page 2 still applies.

I have permission to Multipl(y) Modify characteristics from Page 2. Find where this permission is removed. Page and paragraph. Note: page 32 doesnt work, as you have been told. Continuing to point to page 32 is further acceptance by yourself thgat you are failing to argue using actual rules.

Please show how the rules on pg. 32 do not apply to how modifier are or are not cumulative. Pg. 32 informs us that modifiers from the same ability are not cumulative without specific permission, to which weapons, terrain, scenarios, and psychic powers are listed as sources of modifiers that fall with this restriction. That is in print, right there in the BRB. Further, on the list of Universal Special Rules, Psyker is listed, which gives access to psychic powers and tells us additional rules are found on pg. 68. Additional rules, as in "in addition to the rules found here, there are more rules over there". Pg. 68 does not tell us to ignore pg. 32, in fact pg. 68 supports pg. 32 by further telling us "different powers are cumulative, unless otherwise noted".

My point is that RAW supports non-stacking, while the "Stackers" have to point out gaps in the rules to support their position. You cannot quote a single rule granting permission for modifiers from the same source to stack, yet I can quote more than one passage in the BRB telling us modifiers need to come from different abilities in order to stack. The arguments of "permission resolve equals permission to stack" and "maths" are irrelevant given that additional restrictions are applied elsewhere in the BRB.

SJ

stacking, is given RAW permission, only for different powers,

the whole arguement for same powers stacking is based 100% off what those people read as RAI, and they will quote rules that might be read as intending such, but are not actual permissions for identical powers to stack.

however, the BRB only gives specific permission for different powers to stack, and in a permissive ruleset, that is what we have to go on.

there is no RAW permission for identical powers to stack, some will argue otherwise,

there is 100% permission for different powers to stack, none will argue this, GW spelt it out plainly, and did NOT spell out a similar permission for identical powers.

the "stackers" argue that GWs intention, through other rules, which are not related specifically to stacking, are permission to stack, which they are not, that is an INTENTION based argument.

as RAW stands, only "different" powers stack, because the BRB only says that "different powers stack"

there is no line in the book that says identical powers stack, argueing for RAI that they do based on permission to cast ect, is all well and good, but is not RAW.

besides the obvious lack of RAW supporting stacking of identical powers, there is also plenty of RAI to counter the stackers who are using "RAI" and calling it RAW in this case.

the only RAW in the whole book relating to stacking powers, specifically gives permission for different powers to stack, and does not give such a permission for identical powers to stack. untill an ACTUAL written permission along the lines of "identical powers stack" then there is no such permission, argueing against it is arguing RAI, not RAW

I have not been able to find the quote that says the same powers do not stack.

Anyone have a Page and Graph for me that says this?

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have not been able to find the quote that says the same powers do not stack.

Anyone have a Page and Graph for me that says this?

Correct, just like there are no rules stating same powers do stack. Lack of permission in a permissive rule set.

SJ

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have not been able to find the quote that says the same powers do not stack.

Anyone have a Page and Graph for me that says this?

its a permissive rulest, not a restrictive one, asking someone to find a restriction is incorrect in a permissive ruleset.

you need to find permissions to do things,

you do not need to find restrictions to NOT do things, in a permissive ruleset, they give you permission to do things, not restrictions to not do things.

you need to find the PERMISSION for the desired activity, otherwise its not allowed.

the book is not a restrictive ruleset, hence why your question isnt appropriate, not to mention you are asking for a negative to be proven, which is not a solid argument to be making.

a restriction need not be found at all for a desired action, when the permission to perform that action has not been found first of all.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have not been able to find the quote that says the same powers do not stack.

Anyone have a Page and Graph for me that says this?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Correct, just like there are no rules stating same powers do stack. Lack of permission in a permissive rule set.

SJ

 easysauce wrote:

its a permissive rulest, not a restrictive one, asking someone to find a restriction is incorrect in a permissive ruleset.

you need to find permissions to do things,

you do not need to find restrictions to NOT do things, in a permissive ruleset, they give you permission to do things, not restrictions to not do things.

you need to find the PERMISSION for the desired activity, otherwise its not allowed.

the book is not a restrictive ruleset, hence why your question isnt appropriate, not to mention you are asking for a negative to be proven, which is not a solid argument to be making.

a restriction need not be found at all for a desired action, when the permission to perform that action has not been found first of all.

I am so glad you mentioned that:

I have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from a Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

I also have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from an IC joined to that same Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

Can anyone cite a quote/restriction that says the same powers do not stack? Page and Graph will suffice.

Permission has been shown.
Denial has not.

I have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from a Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

I also have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from an IC joined to that same Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

That's all cool and everyone agrees with that. Now where is your permission to resolve those powers cumulatively so that they become 2 distinct +1 modifiers opposed to both giving the same +1 modifier resulting in an end result of a +1 modifier.

 FlingitNow wrote:

I have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from a Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

I also have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from an IC joined to that same Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

That's all cool and everyone agrees with that. Now where is your permission to resolve those powers cumulatively so that they become 2 distinct +1 modifiers opposed to both giving the same +1 modifier resulting in an end result of a +1 modifier.

Page 2, Multiple modifiers.

I have a +1 from one casting, and a +1 from the IC's casting.

4+1+1=6 as per the multiple modifiers section on Page 2.

Unless you have a quote that denies page 2 multiple modifiers section being used in the case of Psychic Powers.

Page 2 only applies if we have multiple modifiers, you can't use that. You have just used the logical fallacy of A is true because A is true. You have to prove that we have multiple modifiers rather than the same modifier from multiple sources.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Page 2 only applies if we have multiple modifiers, you can't use that. You have just used the logical fallacy of A is true because A is true. You have to prove that we have multiple modifiers rather than the same modifier from multiple sources.

Two things (AKA a +1 from one source, and a +1 from a different source ) is the very definition of multiple...

It seems that you do not understand this point.

OK, for some reason the "doesn't stack" side keeps bringing up page 32. The only restriction I see on page 32 is the same special rule. Where are they getting that psychic powers == special rules?

The point the reverse argument is making is that we do not indeed have multiple modifiers but the same modifier from multiple castings that are therefore all satisfied by a single +1. It is up to you to prove that we have multiple modifiers by proving that the same psychic power is resolved cumulatively with itself.

 Happyjew wrote:
OK, for some reason the "doesn't stack" side keeps bringing up page 32. The only restriction I see on page 32 is the same special rule. Where are they getting that psychic powers == special rules?

It's been invented and has no bearing on the discussion - but they like to keep bringing it up as if it was relevant.

The majority of powers dont give USR's and those that do would not stack. Is malediction or hammerhand a special Rule? If it isn't then page 32 has no bearing on this kind of argument.

 FlingitNow wrote:

I have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from a Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

I also have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from an IC joined to that same Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

That's all cool and everyone agrees with that. Now where is your permission to resolve those powers cumulatively so that they become 2 distinct +1 modifiers opposed to both giving the same +1 modifier resulting in an end result of a +1 modifier.

exactly, you have permission to cast a power, not to stack the same power.

we have permission to stack different powers,

do we have permission to stack the same one? line and pg pls, permission to CAST is not permission to stack

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Page 2 only applies if we have multiple modifiers, you can't use that. You have just used the logical fallacy of A is true because A is true. You have to prove that we have multiple modifiers rather than the same modifier from multiple sources.

Two things (AKA a +1 from one source, and a +1 from a different source ) is the very definition of multiple...

It seems that you do not understand this point.

isn't the source of the modifiers the same power though ?

easysauce wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from a Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

I also have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from an IC joined to that same Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

That's all cool and everyone agrees with that. Now where is your permission to resolve those powers cumulatively so that they become 2 distinct +1 modifiers opposed to both giving the same +1 modifier resulting in an end result of a +1 modifier.

exactly, you have permission to cast a power, not to stack the same power.

we have permission to stack different powers,

do we have permission to stack the same one? line and pg pls, permission to CAST is not permission to stack

I have permission (and am required) to resolve the power (not just cast - that's two steps).
Part of resolving the power is to add -1T to the unit.
Please cite the denial.

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Page 2 only applies if we have multiple modifiers, you can't use that. You have just used the logical fallacy of A is true because A is true. You have to prove that we have multiple modifiers rather than the same modifier from multiple sources.

Two things (AKA a +1 from one source, and a +1 from a different source ) is the very definition of multiple...

It seems that you do not understand this point.

isn't the source of the modifiers the same power though ?

Same names power, different castings - therefore different sources.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Page 2 only applies if we have multiple modifiers, you can't use that. You have just used the logical fallacy of A is true because A is true. You have to prove that we have multiple modifiers rather than the same modifier from multiple sources.

Two things (AKA a +1 from one source, and a +1 from a different source ) is the very definition of multiple...

It seems that you do not understand this point.

isn't the source of the modifiers the same power though ?

Same names power, different castings - therefore different sources.

There a pg and citation for that ?

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Page 2 only applies if we have multiple modifiers, you can't use that. You have just used the logical fallacy of A is true because A is true. You have to prove that we have multiple modifiers rather than the same modifier from multiple sources.

Two things (AKA a +1 from one source, and a +1 from a different source ) is the very definition of multiple...

It seems that you do not understand this point.

isn't the source of the modifiers the same power though ?

Same names power, different castings - therefore different sources.

There a pg and citation for that ?

Is there a page and citation saying they are the same source?

nosferatu1001 wrote:And permission to resolve the power by accumulating has been given - it is a modifier, and page 2 tells you that youu follow the normal rules of maths when applying modifiers.

It is a bizarre idea of "RAW" to deny that the permission is there, and point to reminders elsewhere to create a non-existent additional requirement.

If you are told to add 1 twice, please explain why page 2 does not result in +2. With actual rules, for once.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

An overly general question for a very specific situation so I can only sum it up in a similar nature in one sentence.
>>>It applies what effects it is allowed to.<<<
What was the point of asking that question? I've already covered this. In the case of a second use of the same power, nothing is permitted to happen because they are not cumulative.

And where is there a restriction on what effects it is allowed to apply if it's the second casting?
Enfeeble attempts to add -1T. Is there any rule covering what happens when adding more than one modifier?

Psychic powers are not modifiers so page 2 is irrelevant to the discussion. Enfeebles is a malediction and permission for modifiers to accumulate has nothing to do with it. You need to prove a psychic power is cumulative with other uses of itself. Until then the particulars of its effects are meaningless to discuss as there will be no additional effects from the second use. Right in the resolve power section it tells you what powers are cumulative. In a permissive rule set, that means the others are not cumulative. With a decent grasp on the concept of non-cumulative you'd realize that adding more achieves no additional result. One and one does not equal two if they are not cumulative. Enfeeble plus Enfeeble only results in Enfeeble. If you are increasing the amount of Enfeeble effects on the unit by additional uses of the power you are already treating it cumulatively. That is an assumption of accumulation not stated in the BRB.

You are basically asking me to quote rules that say you cannot do something you are already not permitted to do. The rules for modifiers do not govern psychic powers. Again i ask you to come up with a logical reason that 'same' powers should accumulate.

DeathReaper wrote:I have not been able to find the quote that says the same powers do not stack.

Anyone have a Page and Graph for me that says this?

So your argument is, 'Same' psychic powers are cumulative because modifiers are cumulative and it doesn't say they're not.

Please try again.

rigeld2 wrote:Permission has been shown.
Denial has not.

Saying it again and again does not make it true, no permission has been shown.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

I have permission (and am required) to resolve the power (not just cast - that's two steps).
Part of resolving the power is to add -1T to the unit.
Please cite the denial.

Did you read the part where it tells you what powers are cumulative? Did you know that in a permissive rule set that means that the others are non-cumulative? No denial is needed where no permission is given.

Permission to resolve the power is not permission to treat it cumulatively though the rules does tell you when to do so.

Your assumption is: Enfeeble + Enfeeble = (2)Enfeeble

That is an assumption that they are cumulative because you are adding them together for a combined effect greater than either individually.

They do not have that permission which makes them non-cumulative: Enfeeble + Enfeeble = Enfeeble

 Happyjew wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Page 2 only applies if we have multiple modifiers, you can't use that. You have just used the logical fallacy of A is true because A is true. You have to prove that we have multiple modifiers rather than the same modifier from multiple sources.

Two things (AKA a +1 from one source, and a +1 from a different source ) is the very definition of multiple...

It seems that you do not understand this point.

isn't the source of the modifiers the same power though ?

Same names power, different castings - therefore different sources.

There a pg and citation for that ?

Is there a page and citation saying they are the same source?

since the above quotes contain sources twice can you be specific in the question ?
are you asking for the source of where the enfeeble came from or are you asking for where the source of the modifiers are coming from ?

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from a Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

I also have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from an IC joined to that same Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

That's all cool and everyone agrees with that. Now where is your permission to resolve those powers cumulatively so that they become 2 distinct +1 modifiers opposed to both giving the same +1 modifier resulting in an end result of a +1 modifier.

exactly, you have permission to cast a power, not to stack the same power.

we have permission to stack different powers,

do we have permission to stack the same one? line and pg pls, permission to CAST is not permission to stack

I have permission (and am required) to resolve the power (not just cast - that's two steps).
Part of resolving the power is to add -1T to the unit.
Please cite the denial.

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Page 2 only applies if we have multiple modifiers, you can't use that. You have just used the logical fallacy of A is true because A is true. You have to prove that we have multiple modifiers rather than the same modifier from multiple sources.

Two things (AKA a +1 from one source, and a +1 from a different source ) is the very definition of multiple...

It seems that you do not understand this point.

isn't the source of the modifiers the same power though ?

Same names power, different castings - therefore different sources.

Different caster, but same power. I'm glad you can see it's not a different power even though it has a different source. it's based on the named power, not sources.

pg 142 LRB I think Pg 418 BRB different psychers can have the same powers. They have the same power, they cast the same power.

different powers are cumulative, different sources have no relevancy what so ever.

 Abandon wrote:

Your assumption is: Enfeeble + Enfeeble = (2)Enfeeble

That is an assumption that they are cumulative because you are adding them together for a combined effect greater than either individually.

They do not have that permission which makes them non-cumulative: Enfeeble + Enfeeble = Enfeeble

Please cite the rule that denys Enfeeble the permission to resolve.
Because that's what you're asserting. The resolution requires that it apply the -1T and you're ignoring that.
Bringing up the vehicle red herring would be rude considering I've pointed out why its irrelevant btw.

rigeld2 wrote:

Because that's what you're asserting. The resolution requires that it apply the -1T and you're ignoring that.

Right there , that is completely wrong , resolution has no bearing on the effect. This is why the vehicle example is important

This page is still going on? No one is going to convince others who feel a certain way on this topic... RAW: inconclusive, RAI: 50/50 on what "different" means. When you play with someone just agree on the terms, if playing a tourney find out the ruling. This is the enfeeble thread all over again.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

Your assumption is: Enfeeble + Enfeeble = (2)Enfeeble

That is an assumption that they are cumulative because you are adding them together for a combined effect greater than either individually.

They do not have that permission which makes them non-cumulative: Enfeeble + Enfeeble = Enfeeble

Please cite the rule that denys Enfeeble the permission to resolve.
Because that's what you're asserting. The resolution requires that it apply the -1T and you're ignoring that.
Bringing up the vehicle red herring would be rude considering I've pointed out why its irrelevant btw.

"Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the \Witch roll, you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry. Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."

"Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -l penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain."

Oh boy this is tough.... I'd say by resolving the second Enfeeble you cause Enfeeble to be in effect on the unit. But since the unit already had Enfeeble in effect on it and they don't stack you really do nothing.

Edit: Added note: Putting things together non-cumulatively is a little counter-intuitive but far from difficult.

 Abandon wrote:
So your argument is, 'Same' psychic powers are cumulative because modifiers are cumulative and it doesn't say they're not.

Please try again.

I do not need to try again until you disprove, in a permissive ruleset, my point.

I have permission to cast hammerhand from a paladin squad granting the unit a +1 Str.

I also have permission to cast hammerhand from an IC attached to a paladin squad granting the unit a +1 Str.

Cite a restriction where the Multiple +1 strength modifiers can not apply, because Page 2 says they both apply.

Abandon wrote:
Psychic powers are not modifiers so page 2 is irrelevant to the discussion.

+1S is, however, a modifier, so multiple castings of hammerhand fall under the multiple modifier rule when you are told to determine the effects

Jeffersonian -so no rules showing restrictions placed on page 2? Your concession is accepted.

 Abandon wrote:

"Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -l penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain."

Oh boy this is tough.... I'd say by resolving the second Enfeeble you cause Enfeeble to be in effect on the unit. But since the unit already had Enfeeble in effect on it and they don't stack you really do nothing.

Edit: Added note: Putting things together non-cumulatively is a little counter-intuitive but far from difficult.

Using rules, why are you defining "the power" as any instance of Enfeeble instead of the currently resolving power?

And please stop implying that this is beyond my understanding or skill level somehow - it's not only incorrect, it's rude.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

"Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -l penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain."

Oh boy this is tough.... I'd say by resolving the second Enfeeble you cause Enfeeble to be in effect on the unit. But since the unit already had Enfeeble in effect on it and they don't stack you really do nothing.

Edit: Added note: Putting things together non-cumulatively is a little counter-intuitive but far from difficult.

Using rules, why are you defining "the power" as any instance of Enfeeble instead of the currently resolving power?

And please stop implying that this is beyond my understanding or skill level somehow - it's not only incorrect, it's rude.

Im going with Rigeld2 on this. Saying the powers don't stack is like saying bolters don't cause more wounds because they have the same name "bolter"

This thread is reminding me of haruspicy more and more.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Abandon wrote:
Psychic powers are not modifiers so page 2 is irrelevant to the discussion.

+1S is, however, a modifier, so multiple castings of hammerhand fall under the multiple modifier rule when you are told to determine the effects

Jeffersonian -so no rules showing restrictions placed on page 2? Your concession is accepted.

Just because you have nothing better to do than post multiple times while others do things like work and sleep, don't assume you've won an internet argument. That kind of assumption, much like your position on this subject, is more baseless than conclusive.

We are told on pg. 68 of the BRB that undefined powers which grant modifiers to friendly models are considered Blessings. On the same page, we are informed the different blessings are cumulative, unless otherwise noted. Hammerhand grants a modifier to friendly models, which per the BRB means that Hammerhand is a Blessing. Since Hammerhand lack verbiage stating it can accumulate via multiple castings, the benefit from Hammerhand does not stack with other uses of Hammerhand on the same model. Might of Titan, however, does contain verbiage informing us that its modifier is cumulative with Hammerhand. The fact that psychic powers have rules for which modifiers are cumulative and which are not trumps pg. 2 (specific > general).

In your example, the Paladins wasted their warp charge, because the IC had Hammerhand covered for the unit the whole time. (Note: I'm a Grey Knight player, the advantage would be mine if Hammerhand did stack.)

I'm still waiting for your proof.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The fact that psychic powers have rules for which modifiers are cumulative and which are not

Just like to point out that there aren't any rules in the psychic powers part of the rulebook that tells us what isn't cumulative, which I believe is a major contributing factor to the popularity of these threads.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just because you have nothing better to do than post multiple times while others do things like work and sleep, don't assume you've won an internet argument. That kind of assumption, much like your position on this subject, is more baseless than conclusive.

He was referring to your post yesterday not containing any rules citations restricting page 2.

We are told on pg. 68 of the BRB that undefined powers which grant modifiers to friendly models are considered Blessings. On the same page, we are informed the different blessings are cumulative, unless otherwise noted. Hammerhand grants a modifier to friendly models, which per the BRB means that Hammerhand is a Blessing. Since Hammerhand lack verbiage stating it can accumulate via multiple castings, the benefit from Hammerhand does not stack with other uses of Hammerhand on the same model. Might of Titan, however, does contain verbiage informing us that its modifier is cumulative with Hammerhand. The fact that psychic powers have rules for which modifiers are cumulative and which are not trumps pg. 2 (specific > general).

In your example, the Paladins wasted their warp charge, because the IC had Hammerhand covered for the unit the whole time. (Note: I'm a Grey Knight player, the advantage would be mine if Hammerhand did stack.)

I'm still waiting for your proof.

Hammerhand requires you to add 1 STR. Please explain why you're denying this.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just because you have nothing better to do than post multiple times while others do things like work and sleep, don't assume you've won an internet argument. That kind of assumption, much like your position on this subject, is more baseless than conclusive.

He was referring to your post yesterday not containing any rules citations restricting page 2.

Indeed I was; this is now the 3rd time (at least) jeffersonian has refused / dissembled / been unable to provide any rules, well any applicable rules, that proves that the specific allowance to perform 1+1 and obtain 2, from any source different or same (because the scope of page 2 has no statement regarding any limitation on source, any source must be valid, by definition - permission granted for same source, or different source, to access the multiple modifiers rules) has been restricted.

RAW, page 2 allows 1+1 = 2, whether it is the same or different sources. This is, using actual rules, indisputable.

rigeld2 wrote:

We are told on pg. 68 of the BRB that undefined powers which grant modifiers to friendly models are considered Blessings. On the same page, we are informed the different blessings are cumulative, unless otherwise noted. Hammerhand grants a modifier to friendly models, which per the BRB means that Hammerhand is a Blessing. Since Hammerhand lack verbiage stating it can accumulate via multiple castings, the benefit from Hammerhand does not stack with other uses of Hammerhand on the same model. Might of Titan, however, does contain verbiage informing us that its modifier is cumulative with Hammerhand. The fact that psychic powers have rules for which modifiers are cumulative and which are not trumps pg. 2 (specific > general).

In your example, the Paladins wasted their warp charge, because the IC had Hammerhand covered for the unit the whole time. (Note: I'm a Grey Knight player, the advantage would be mine if Hammerhand did stack.)

I'm still waiting for your proof.

Hammerhand requires you to add 1 STR. Please explain why you're denying this.

Waste of time, as this has been asked each and every time. Prepare for hand waving of page 68, or page 32, again.

Nobody is going to win this arguement untill an official FAQ from GW comes out about this subject. No point in argueing it because neither side has sufficient proof one way or the other.

Per RAW, pg. 2 allows (((Stat) * (Multiplier)) + (Modifier))[replace with set value].

Per RAW, pg. 68 tells us (((Stat) * (multiplier)) + (power1 + power2 + power3 + ...))[replace with set value].

The argument is whether or not "power#" means different powers from one or more casters, or the same power from one or more casters. The Stackers say "different powers = different casters, regardless of the power's name". The Non-Stackers say "different powers = differently named powers, regardless of caster".

My point regarding pg. 32 is that a precedent is set when applying multiples of the same modifier from different uses of the same ability, a specific rule that trumps the general rule on pg. 2. Psychic powers are another specific set of rules that bend or break the basic rules of the game, originally noted in the Special Rules section, and further fleshed out in its own section. As such, modifiers from psychic powers follow the basic rules as detailed on pg. 2, as well as the more advanced rules found on pages 32 and 68.

Stating that pg. 32 does not apply is to ignore the rules as written. Pg. 32 tells us that modifiers from multiple uses of the same ability (such as Hammerhand or Enfeeble) are not cumulative without specific permission. This means that the Stacker position is incorrect, as different casters is irrelevant if its the same power that is being cast multiple times.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Stating that pg. 32 does not apply is to ignore the rules as written. Pg. 32 tells us that modifiers from multiple uses of the same ability (such as Hammerhand or Enfeeble) are not cumulative without specific permission. This means that the Stacker position is incorrect, as different casters is irrelevant if its the same power that is being cast multiple times.

When you find the Psychic rules under Special Rules I'll agree. Until then any time you bring up page 32 you're doing yourself a disservice.
It's not "fleshed out later" - the sections are completely different and don't refer to each other.

pg 32 states that "Unless otherwise specified, a model cannon gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."

Modifiers like the +1S from Hammerhand are not special rules, so page 32 is meaningless.

_e

You may say that, but the section does answer the pertinent question of what "different" means in the game. And since you all seem to be ignoring the fact that psychic powers are listed multiple times on pg. 32, as well as the Psyker special rule list later on the section, the Special Rules section is relevant.

Until a FAQ is released addressing the issue, your opinion on this has the same weight as mine, which is to say no weight at all. I'll leave this in the hands of the Tournament Organizers and call it a day. Good Day!

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You may say that, but the section does answer the pertinent question of what "different" means in the game. And since you all seem to be ignoring the fact that psychic powers are listed multiple times on pg. 32, as well as the Psyker special rule list later on the section, the Special Rules section is relevant.

I'm not ignoring that at all.
The multiple times it's referenced are talking about special rules being granted by psychic powers. The Psyker special rule isn't a superset of the psychic rules. You're ignoring that fact, and that's why the rules on page 32 are irrelevant.

An opponent in a tournament this past weekend was arguing with me about this and looked up some FAQ on his phone that said (I'm paraphrasing) "effects from the same power cast by different psykers are cumulative'. I did not look at his phone but the the TO I guess glanced at it and agreed.
However, I just went through the current GW main rulebook FAQ twice and could not find any FAQ relating to this issue...here's the link:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3440036a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.5_September_13.pdf

So can anyone find something in the current FAQ about it? Am I blinder than I think I am? Perhaps that was an old FAQ?


I am of the opinion however that the word different refers to the power, not to the caster. The dude playing 3 Tervigons, a Flyrant who all had Enfeeble somehow thought it should all be cumulative.
Good thing Fleshhounds with Abjuration deny the witch on a 3+!

No such FAQ.

Afaik several of the "major" GTs ruled that same powers from different sources stack. He could have been reading a GT FAQ.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
An opponent in a tournament this past weekend was arguing with me about this and looked up some FAQ on his phone that said (I'm paraphrasing) "effects from the same power cast by different psykers are cumulative'. I did not look at his phone but the the TO I guess glanced at it and agreed.
However, I just went through the current GW main rulebook FAQ twice and could not find any FAQ relating to this issue...here's the link:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3440036a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.5_September_13.pdf

So can anyone find something in the current FAQ about it? Am I blinder than I think I am? Perhaps that was an old FAQ?


I am of the opinion however that the word different refers to the power, not to the caster. The dude playing 3 Tervigons, a Flyrant who all had Enfeeble somehow thought it should all be cumulative.
Good thing Fleshhounds with Abjuration deny the witch on a 3+!

Some of the bigger tournies have picked the same power stacks argument. so the tourny you were in might have been using one of them, or it was the FAQ for the tourny you were in. I think adepticon and astronomicon went that way. They also went with the drop pods losing hull points when the arrived, so even they can come out on the wrong side of these debates.

You'd at least hope tournies would pick the least powerfull version to maintain balance. But what can you do?

Psychic powers are not special rules unless it says "The unit gains stealth." In which case you can't stack up stealth. But if the power doesnt give a unit the special rule I dont see anywhere in the rulebook where they wouldnt stack. Only if the power gives the unit a special rule would they not stack according to pg. 32

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
*snip*

Some of the bigger tournies have picked the same power stacks argument. so the tourny you were in might have been using one of them, or it was the FAQ for the tourny you were in. I think adepticon and astronomicon went that way. They also went with the drop pods losing hull points when the arrived, so even they can come out on the wrong side of these debates.

You'd at least hope tournies would pick the least powerfull version to maintain balance. But what can you do?

Well, I think Enfeeble stacking actually balances the meta more... it doesn't help any of the top three armies (Tau/Eldar/Necrons) but boosts Daemons (who ok, don't need it) and Tyranids (who definitely need any boost they can get).

I'm personally in favor of the RAW interpretation that they do stack, because every denial of the "multiple powers stack" has seemed to me like feeble clutching at straws in the wording. If we have permission to cast the power twice, and the power gives us permisiion to resolve it, they don't need to put it in every single reference that it can be used twice.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
An opponent in a tournament this past weekend was arguing with me about this and looked up some FAQ on his phone that said (I'm paraphrasing) "effects from the same power cast by different psykers are cumulative'. I did not look at his phone but the the TO I guess glanced at it and agreed.
However, I just went through the current GW main rulebook FAQ twice and could not find any FAQ relating to this issue...here's the link:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3440036a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.5_September_13.pdf

So can anyone find something in the current FAQ about it? Am I blinder than I think I am? Perhaps that was an old FAQ?


I am of the opinion however that the word different refers to the power, not to the caster. The dude playing 3 Tervigons, a Flyrant who all had Enfeeble somehow thought it should all be cumulative.
Good thing Fleshhounds with Abjuration deny the witch on a 3+!

Some of the bigger tournies have picked the same power stacks argument. so the tourny you were in might have been using one of them, or it was the FAQ for the tourny you were in. I think adepticon and astronomicon went that way. They also went with the drop pods losing hull points when the arrived, so even they can come out on the wrong side of these debates.

You'd at least hope tournies would pick the least powerfull version to maintain balance. But what can you do?

Adepticon ruled they stack. Nova rules they stack. Daboyz ruled they stack.

Weird that so many TOs agreed on the subject.

 jifel wrote:

Well, I think Enfeeble stacking actually balances the meta more... it doesn't help any of the top three armies (Tau/Eldar/Necrons) but boosts Daemons (who ok, don't need it) and Tyranids (who definitely need any boost they can get).

Stacking boosts Eldar quite a bit, as then they can stack Runes of Battle powers.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
An opponent in a tournament this past weekend was arguing with me about this and looked up some FAQ on his phone that said (I'm paraphrasing) "effects from the same power cast by different psykers are cumulative'. I did not look at his phone but the the TO I guess glanced at it and agreed.
However, I just went through the current GW main rulebook FAQ twice and could not find any FAQ relating to this issue...here's the link:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3440036a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.5_September_13.pdf

So can anyone find something in the current FAQ about it? Am I blinder than I think I am? Perhaps that was an old FAQ?


I am of the opinion however that the word different refers to the power, not to the caster. The dude playing 3 Tervigons, a Flyrant who all had Enfeeble somehow thought it should all be cumulative.
Good thing Fleshhounds with Abjuration deny the witch on a 3+!

Some of the bigger tournies have picked the same power stacks argument. so the tourny you were in might have been using one of them, or it was the FAQ for the tourny you were in. I think adepticon and astronomicon went that way. They also went with the drop pods losing hull points when the arrived, so even they can come out on the wrong side of these debates.

You'd at least hope tournies would pick the least powerfull version to maintain balance. But what can you do?

Adepticon ruled they stack. Nova rules they stack. Daboyz ruled they stack.

Weird that so many TOs agreed on the subject.

They also agreed on drop pods losing hull points when the come on the board from reserves. they were wrong on that one, so they can be (and are) wrong on this one as well. Their opinions on the matter only matter if you go to those events, outside those events their opinion is just as bad as anyone else.

Bit of a rhetorical question for both sides, but should a modifier, that is sourced from a special rule, be cumulative if not specified?

 fuusa wrote:
Bit of a rhetorical question for both sides, but should a modifier, that is sourced from a special rule, be cumulative if not specified?

Ask Page 2

 DeathReaper wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
Bit of a rhetorical question for both sides, but should a modifier, that is sourced from a special rule, be cumulative if not specified?

Ask Page 2

Thought special rules say they are only cumulative when mentioned in the entry

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
Bit of a rhetorical question for both sides, but should a modifier, that is sourced from a special rule, be cumulative if not specified?

Ask Page 2

Thought special rules say they are only cumulative when mentioned in the entry

That is true, however the +1 Str from Hammerhand is not a special rule (Or the effects of any Psychic power, unless it specifically mentions a USR within the power itself), unless i missed it on pages 33-43 of the BRB.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You may say that, but the section does answer the pertinent question of what "different" means in the game. And since you all seem to be ignoring the fact that psychic powers are listed multiple times on pg. 32, as well as the Psyker special rule list later on the section, the Special Rules section is relevant.

Until a FAQ is released addressing the issue, your opinion on this has the same weight as mine, which is to say no weight at all. I'll leave this in the hands of the Tournament Organizers and call it a day. Good Day!

SJ

So again you are being deliberately misleading on what page 32 states?

It states you cannot gain special rules more than once. +1S isnt a special rule, unless you can, for once, find an actual rule stating so.

Page 32 doesnt apply. It has never applied. If you repeat this again, the assumption is you are trolling, as you cannot truly believe it applies, given the evidence provided to you.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
Bit of a rhetorical question for both sides, but should a modifier, that is sourced from a special rule, be cumulative if not specified?

Ask Page 2

Thought special rules say they are only cumulative when mentioned in the entry

That is true, however the +1 Str from Hammerhand is not a special rule (Or the effects of any Psychic power, unless it specifically mentions a USR within the power itself), unless i missed it on pages 33-43 of the BRB.

Yes, but hammerhand is a psychic power, which by definition was used by a psycher.
Pg 41 defines "psycher" as a special rule, as do the codices (so far I have looked at those I have, chaos x2 and eldar, tau notwithstanding).

The rules on p66+, "psychers" are therefore a subset or the explanation of what psycher the special rule means.
= the +1 from hammerhand was sourced from a special rule. Pg 2 is not specific enough here to sway the debate either way.

That plus the same/different debate seems to me the only challenge to pg 2.

Tbh, I am undecided (deny the witch and psychic hood give cause for concern).

Wounds from Monstrous Creatures are AP 2, the AP 2 comes from the special rule Smash, according to to page 32 special rules do not stack, therefore wounds from Monstrous Creatures do not stack.

How many special rules are you using when you use smash, which applies to all wounds?

The same rule, many times. Which under your idea that the "special rule" designation is totally transitive, means that wounds cannot stack.

I'd suggest your reading is a little broad.

Untrue.
You are using 1 rule once.
One special rule is applied to all wounds.

No, every time you cause a wound, you are using the rule "Smash" to resolve that wound at AP2, as opposed to the AP of the weapon (unless it is AP1)

One wound caused, Smash used
Next wound caused, Smash used
....
Nth wound causes, Smash used.

Your argument falls over.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

One wound caused, Smash used
Next wound caused, Smash used
....
Nth wound causes, Smash used.

No, smash used = all wounds ap2.

Smash is 1 rule that can do a number of things.
Smash (singular) "All of the close combat attacks ... are resolved at ap2." One instance of "smash" does this.

Smash does not stack in the way you suggest, it, that is, the single special rule smash applies to all close combat attacks.

For eg, split fire.
If this was performed in the way you suggest, anymodel with (say) an assault 2 weapon, would make the unit take one ld test for each shot fired.
You are incorrect.

Thank you for proving my point that something tangentially related to a special rule is not bound by the same rules that prevent stacking.

 fuusa wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
Bit of a rhetorical question for both sides, but should a modifier, that is sourced from a special rule, be cumulative if not specified?

Ask Page 2

Thought special rules say they are only cumulative when mentioned in the entry

That is true, however the +1 Str from Hammerhand is not a special rule (Or the effects of any Psychic power, unless it specifically mentions a USR within the power itself), unless i missed it on pages 33-43 of the BRB.

Yes, but hammerhand is a psychic power, which by definition was used by a psycher.
Pg 41 defines "psycher" as a special rule, as do the codices (so far I have looked at those I have, chaos x2 and eldar, tau notwithstanding).

The rules on p66+, "psychers" are therefore a subset or the explanation of what psycher the special rule means.
= the +1 from hammerhand was sourced from a special rule. Pg 2 is not specific enough here to sway the debate either way.

That plus the same/different debate seems to me the only challenge to pg 2.

Tbh, I am undecided (deny the witch and psychic hood give cause for concern).

Psycher itself is a special rule meaning you cant have the psycher special rule in effect more then once. Just because being a psycher is a special rule doesnt automatically make the powers they cast fall under the same catagory. you are assuming too much with your "Psycher is a special rule" line.

Can we stop saying "psycher", it looks like Cher became a psyker.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Thank you for proving my point that something tangentially related to a special rule is not bound by the same rules that prevent stacking.

Disagree, it may be fundamental.
You didn't answer the question though, how many special rules are being used?

 Xerics wrote:

Psycher itself is a special rule meaning you cant have the psycher special rule in effect more then once. Just because being a psycher is a special rule doesnt automatically make the powers they cast fall under the same catagory. you are assuming too much with your "Psycher is a special rule" line.

Psyker is a special rule, which is explained in the psyker section, p41 is not a rule, its a reference to p66.

The psyker "special rules" are explained there where the powers are grouped into blessings, conjurations etc.
Therefore, psychic powers are governed by special rules.

 fuusa wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Thank you for proving my point that something tangentially related to a special rule is not bound by the same rules that prevent stacking.

Disagree, it may be fundamental.
You didn't answer the question though, how many special rules are being used?

 Xerics wrote:

Psycher itself is a special rule meaning you cant have the psycher special rule in effect more then once. Just because being a psycher is a special rule doesnt automatically make the powers they cast fall under the same catagory. you are assuming too much with your "Psycher is a special rule" line.

Psyker is a special rule, which is explained in the psyker section, p41 is not a rule, its a reference to p66.

The psyker "special rules" are explained there where the powers are grouped into blessings, conjurations etc.
Therefore, psychic powers are governed by special rules.

No the rules for Psykers are on page 66. The Psyker special rule allows a model to use the rules on page 66. And I've yet to see any proof that psychic powers are specialrules with the exception of "Psyker is a special rule therefore any rules dealing with Psykers are special rules."

 fuusa wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Thank you for proving my point that something tangentially related to a special rule is not bound by the same rules that prevent stacking.

Disagree, it may be fundamental.
You didn't answer the question though, how many special rules are being used?

 Xerics wrote:

Psycher itself is a special rule meaning you cant have the psycher special rule in effect more then once. Just because being a psycher is a special rule doesnt automatically make the powers they cast fall under the same catagory. you are assuming too much with your "Psycher is a special rule" line.

Psyker is a special rule, which is explained in the psyker section, p41 is not a rule, its a reference to p66.

The psyker "special rules" are explained there where the powers are grouped into blessings, conjurations etc.
Therefore, psychic powers are governed by special rules.

Again, you are making a logical fallacy that, because "Psyker" is a special rule, that anything the psyker then does / grant / take away etc must be a special rule

+1S is not a special rule. Stealth is a special rule. Spotted the difference yet?

"Stealth" is not a special rule, "Stealth" is a Universal Special Rule that grants a modifier to cover saves which changes the basic rules for how cover saves are generated. Its the modifier and other rules found under the name "Stealth" that constitute a special rules. USR's, as noted in the Special Rules section of the BRB, are the most commonly used special rules in the game which are listed in one place, yet are by no means exclusive. Any rules that bends or breaks the basic rules are by definition "special rules" per pg. 32. The majority of psychic powers contain special rules, such as a +1 Strength modifier (per pg. 32), applying a modifier out of sequence (as seen in Hammerhand), or granting a USR (as seen in Shrouded). As such, these rules follow the restrictions found on pg. 32.

Hammerhand grants two things the bend or break the rules: +1S and applying it before multiplication. Per pg. 32, the modifier from Hammerhand is not cumulative because Hammerhand does not contain verbiage telling us its modifier is cumulative with other castings of Hammerhand, a point that is reiterated on pg. 68. The same is true for Enfeeble.

There are several psychic powers that do not contain special rules, such as Witchfire powers that count as wespons, yet do not have additional rules that bend or break the basic rules.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
"Stealth" is not a special rule, "Stealth" is a Universal Special Rule

What page can Universal Special Rules be found on? I see "Special Rules" starting on page 32, but looking in the index I see no mention of Universal Special Rules.

Furthermore, under Sergeant Telion in C:SM, one of his Special Rules is "Stealth". If Stealth is not a Special Rule, where can I find the rules for it?

So when you are told that USRs are common Special Rules, that makes Stealth NOT a special rule?

Interesting take on the rules. Totally ignores them, but interesting nonetheless.

I give up. No point in trying to explain further. Good luck to the reasonable Dakka folk, you'll need it versus the Dakka Debate Society. I'm out.

SJ

Mind War is a Psychic power that targets an individual model rather then a unit. It bends/breaks the rules yet it isnt a special rule. How do you explain that one?

 Xerics wrote:
Mind War is a Psychic power that targets an individual model rather then a unit. It bends/breaks the rules yet it isnt a special rule. How do you explain that one?

Because the Psychic power specifies what it does, so it is more specific than the general targeting rules (Advanced Vs. Basic).

nosferatu1001 wrote:
[+1S is not a special rule. Stealth is a special rule. Spotted the difference yet?

+1 cover save is not a special rule. Stealth is a special rule.
If I have a model with a piece of war gear that negates special rules, you wont be getting that +1 save as it is sourced from a special rule.
You wouldn't be using psychic powers either, so that +1S from hammerhand is gone.

 Happyjew wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
"Stealth" is not a special rule, "Stealth" is a Universal Special Rule

What page can Universal Special Rules be found on? I see "Special Rules" starting on page 32, but looking in the index I see no mention of Universal Special Rules.

P32, first para. "That's why we have universal special rules."

Negating the special rule Psyker would not negate psychic powers previously cast on or by the psyker.

 fuusa wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
[+1S is not a special rule. Stealth is a special rule. Spotted the difference yet?

+1 cover save is not a special rule. Stealth is a special rule.
If I have a model with a piece of war gear that negates special rules, you wont be getting that +1 save as it is sourced from a special rule.
You wouldn't be using psychic powers either, so that +1S from hammerhand is gone.

Negates ALL special rules? Then you cannot use the psychic power in the first place. If it only negates special rules affecting the bearer, and the opponent is the GK, then +1S would not go.

You still seem to believe that +1S is a special rule. It isnt, despite Jeffersonians made up rules otherwise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
[+1S is not a special rule. Stealth is a special rule. Spotted the difference yet?

+1 cover save is not a special rule. Stealth is a special rule.
If I have a model with a piece of war gear that negates special rules, you wont be getting that +1 save as it is sourced from a special rule.
You wouldn't be using psychic powers either, so that +1S from hammerhand is gone.

Negates ALL special rules? Then you cannot use the psychic power in the first place. If it only negates special rules affecting the bearer, and the opponent is the GK, then +1S would not go.

By negating special rules, I meant nothing works, not nullifying existing effects, that was unclear.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You still seem to believe that +1S is a special rule. It isnt, despite Jeffersonians made up rules otherwise.

No, certainly not.
+1S can however, come from a special rule like furious charge.

So, if we run with that, according to pg2, a model with fc gets his +1 S.
If we then introduce a bubble effect that grants usr furious charge, pg2 is ok with +2S, p32 says no, special rules don't stack in that manner.

If however the bubble effect was called "go loopy" both pg2 and p32 are ok.
They do the same things, but are not the same.

The +1/+2 S is not a special rule, the source of those modifiers are (in this case) certainly special rules, so the nature of special rules has to be taken into account when using modifiers, p2 is not sufficient alone.

So, with my bit of war gear, there are no active psykers around and the +1/+2 S will not occur, because they originate from special rules.
Of course, this bit of war gear could be a right disaster for game purposes and is an invention purely for arguments sake.

Oh it would be a complete disaster, so much wouldnt operate as it is tied to a special rule.

The +1S from hammerhand comes from a special rule, the psyker special rule, so would only be "stopped" by thsi wargear if it stopped the psyker from casting it. If it were a "in base contact" style wargear, then as long as the psyker wasnt in base contact at the time they want to cast the power, your wargear would not remove the +1S even if the psyker later moved into base contact. (e.g. pile in at Init)

As for page 2 not being seen in isolation - I agree. The point is that unless you can show that page 32 applies to Hammerhand / etc, which of course it doesnt, then the allowance on page 2 to do 1+ 1 and equal 2 would still apply, as page 2 at no point mentions source

This is what Jeffersonian has so far failed to prove - first by saying that page 2 doesnt allow X+1+1 to equal X+2 (they stated it only allowed a single addition - which is totally incorrect), then by saying the all psychic powers are special rules as per page 32 (they are not - some may grant special rules, or incorporate special rules, but they are not in and of themselves special rules) , and then by saying that because you are reminded that different psychic powers can combine effects that this somehow means the inverse is true (the missing middle fallacy) - which is also not true.

Every single argument, every time, has been debunked

"Stacking" is simply mathematics. We are given permission to use the normal rules (axioms) of mathematics on page 2, and nothing removes this for the "same" psychic power. *Only* where a psychic power grants the same special rule - for example Stealth - is stacking prevented

This is all very, very clear.

So for example several Nurgle Daemon Psykers roll up Miasma of Pestilence and get into a large melee (assume each is its own unit within the fight). Does that mean the penalties from Miasma of Pestilence would stack with one another (roll a d3 at start of each fight subphase, all enemy units locked in combat with the target or his unit suffers penalties to WS and I equal to the dice roll)?

Yes, as you have permission for each one of them to resolve.

You then have arguments of "this power" - does it mean this instance of casting, or this named power at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, as you have permission for each one of them to resolve.

You then have arguments of "this power" - does it mean this instance of casting, or this named power at all.

Which, as I have said previously, is so ambiguous a wording that we really can't say with certainty one way or the other what "this power" refers.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Which, as I have said previously, is so ambiguous a wording that we really can't say with certainty one way or the other what "this power" refers.

No we can't. Only if GW would have told us which powers stack... Wait! They did!

 Crimson wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Which, as I have said previously, is so ambiguous a wording that we really can't say with certainty one way or the other what "this power" refers.

No we can't. Only if GW would have told us which powers stack... Wait! They did!

You have a Citation I assume?

 DeathReaper wrote:

You have a Citation I assume?

Obviously. You know it, it has been posted many times. They say different powers stack. We know what they meant. Saying that "oh, but they didn't say same powers don't" is just exploiting a legal loophole to get around the intent. If you want to play like that, go for it, I personally don't.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

You have a Citation I assume?

Obviously. You know it, it has been posted many times. They say different powers stack. We know what they meant. Saying that "oh, but they didn't say same powers don't" is just exploiting a legal loophole to get around the intent. If you want to play like that, go for it, I personally don't.

I completely, 100% disagree on your "RAI" interpretation there. The "different powers stack" rule could EASILY refer to different castings of a power. Just like how firing two lascannons at a target means they get resolved twice... Even if they're identical lascannons on identical Tac Marines.

And if Maledictions don't stack, does Objuration Mechanicum not inflict two Haywire hits when cast twice, in the mind of the disagreers?

 jifel wrote:

I completely, 100% disagree on your "RAI" interpretation there. The "different powers stack" rule could EASILY refer to different castings of a power. Just like how firing two lascannons at a target means they get resolved twice... Even if they're identical lascannons on identical Tac Marines.

In that same chapter 'same power' is used to mean 'power with the same name', thus it logically follows that 'different power' is 'power with a different name'.

And if Maledictions don't stack, does Objuration Mechanicum not inflict two Haywire hits when cast twice, in the mind of the disagreers?

It probably does, as the haywire hits are an instant rather than ongoing effect, and not part of 'whilst in effect' clause.

 Crimson wrote:

 jifel wrote:

I completely, 100% disagree on your "RAI" interpretation there. The "different powers stack" rule could EASILY refer to different castings of a power. Just like how firing two lascannons at a target means they get resolved twice... Even if they're identical lascannons on identical Tac Marines.

In that same chapter 'same power' is used to mean 'power with the same name', thus it logically follows that 'different power' is 'power with a different name'.

And if Maledictions don't stack, does Objuration Mechanicum not inflict two Haywire hits when cast twice, in the mind of the disagreers?

It probably does, as the haywire hits are an instant rather than ongoing effect, and not part of 'whilst in effect' clause.

Hammerhand states: "...If the Psychic test is passed, all models in the unit (Including IC's) have +1 Strength until the end of the assault phase..." (Page 25 GK Codex, Non essential text removed).

There is no 'whilst in effect' clause in Hammerhand, just a +1 Str. Casting this twice would result in multiple modifiers, and as such page 2 applies.

Same power, different casting.

P.S. "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (page 68 BRB) does not mean that the effects of the same psychic power are not cumulative.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hammerhand states: "...If the Psychic test is passed, all models in the unit (Including IC's) have +1 Strength until the end of the assault phase..." (Page 25 GK Codex, Non essential text removed).

It's an old power and has old wording. Maybe it stacks then. Or then you just chalk it up as 5E codex clitch and play it like 6E power. Both options seem reasonable to me.

P.S. "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (page 68 BRB) does not mean that the effects of the same psychic power are not cumulative.

I have already said what I think about that line of reasoning. But then you can cast those cumulative Enfeebles on those T6 Rawenwing bikers if you want to play like that.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

"Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -l penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain."

Oh boy this is tough.... I'd say by resolving the second Enfeeble you cause Enfeeble to be in effect on the unit. But since the unit already had Enfeeble in effect on it and they don't stack you really do nothing.

Edit: Added note: Putting things together non-cumulatively is a little counter-intuitive but far from difficult.

Using rules, why are you defining "the power" as any instance of Enfeeble instead of the currently resolving power?

And please stop implying that this is beyond my understanding or skill level somehow - it's not only incorrect, it's rude.

As it is not given the status of 'cumulative' it really doesn't matter if 'the power' means that use or the power in general. Either way Enfeeble will be 'in effect' only once as same psychic powers are not permitted to be cumulative. With that in mind, no matter which way you want to call it, Enfeeble will only ever be in effect once at any given point on the same unit.

I would not imply as much but as much as I explain you either do not seem to understand or intentionally ignore my point.

Lemartes12 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

"Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -l penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain."

Oh boy this is tough.... I'd say by resolving the second Enfeeble you cause Enfeeble to be in effect on the unit. But since the unit already had Enfeeble in effect on it and they don't stack you really do nothing.

Edit: Added note: Putting things together non-cumulatively is a little counter-intuitive but far from difficult.

Using rules, why are you defining "the power" as any instance of Enfeeble instead of the currently resolving power?

And please stop implying that this is beyond my understanding or skill level somehow - it's not only incorrect, it's rude.

Im going with Rigeld2 on this. Saying the powers don't stack is like saying bolters don't cause more wounds because they have the same name "bolter"

The shooting rules are much more detailed than psychic powers and tell you exactly how to handle any number of bolters. Wounds are also worded so as to be cumulative when subtracted from a model.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
Bit of a rhetorical question for both sides, but should a modifier, that is sourced from a special rule, be cumulative if not specified?

Ask Page 2

Thought special rules say they are only cumulative when mentioned in the entry

That is true, however the +1 Str from Hammerhand is not a special rule (Or the effects of any Psychic power, unless it specifically mentions a USR within the power itself), unless i missed it on pages 33-43 of the BRB.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The same rule, many times. Which under your idea that the "special rule" designation is totally transitive, means that wounds cannot stack.

I'd suggest your reading is a little broad.

Psychic powers are not special rules, modifiers or war gear. That their effects may cause some of those things does not mean that the powers are governed by their rules. That throws out pages 2 and 32, I'm tired of hearing about them, they hold no sway over this issue.

PrinceRaven wrote:Thank you for proving my point that something tangentially related to a special rule is not bound by the same rules that prevent stacking.

Quite correct. This also means the powers that are 'tangentially related' to modifiers are not granted the ability to stack either. That they cause special rules or modifiers does not matter

PrinceRaven wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, as you have permission for each one of them to resolve.

You then have arguments of "this power" - does it mean this instance of casting, or this named power at all.

Which, as I have said previously, is so ambiguous a wording that we really can't say with certainty one way or the other what "this power" refers.

Which does not matter because 'this power' is not permitted to stack. The second instance of the same power therefore does not add to the volume of 'this power' that is in effect. IE You would be, by definition, required to handle them cumulatively to ever count more than one Enfeeble on a unit no matter how many times you add(resolve) another one. This means the number of Enfeebles on a unit will never exceed one unless you find permission for the power to be cumulative with itself.

...and please no more running around in circles, permission to resolve each one is not permission to handle them cumulatively and how you handle modifiers and special rules has no bearing on psychic powers.

 Abandon wrote:
Psychic powers are not special rules, modifiers or war gear. That their effects may cause some of those things does not mean that the powers are governed by their rules. That throws out pages 2 and 32, I'm tired of hearing about them, they hold no sway over this issue.

(Emphasis mine)
The +1 str from hammerhand in the GK codex, disagrees with the underlined.

Psychic powers can grant modifiers...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Psychic powers are not special rules, modifiers or war gear. That their effects may cause some of those things does not mean that the powers are governed by their rules. That throws out pages 2 and 32, I'm tired of hearing about them, they hold no sway over this issue.

(Emphasis mine)
The +1 str from hammerhand in the GK codex, disagrees with the underlined.

Psychic powers can grant modifiers...

Your statement does not disagree with mine. You say they can grant modifiers but do not claim they are modifiers. I'm glad you can tell the difference. It's cause and effect really. IE, Enfeeble causes a modifier. It would b a logical fallacy to assume that because the effect stacks that the cause does also. All I'm saying is if the cause (Enfeeble) does not stack, there will never be more than one cause(Enfeeble) on a unit to create an effect(modifier). If you tell me there can be two Enfeebles on a unit, please tell me how you managed to count two of them without adding them up, AKA stacking them, AKA treating them as cumulative.

Unless I'm reading to much into your statement in which case, please tell us how a psychic power is a modifier.

Right Psychic powers are not modifiers, but they can grant modifiers. I thought you were talking about the effects of Powers, not the powers themselves.

There can be two of the same psychic power cast on a single unit, and if they grant the unit a modifier, these modifiers will stack as per P.2

Abandon - so youre trying to lay claim that you cannot have "hammerhand" twice on the same unit? Even though you are permitted to resolve the power, and thus the effect, twice?

That is a bizarre interpretation that does not fit into any rule that you can possibly provide.

"Hammerhand" is not on the unit twice, the psyker has cast ahmmerhand, and the effect is on the unit twice.

It has to accumulate, according to page 2

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Abandon - so youre trying to lay claim that you cannot have "hammerhand" twice on the same unit? Even though you are permitted to resolve the power, and thus the effect, twice?

That is a bizarre interpretation that does not fit into any rule that you can possibly provide.

"Hammerhand" is not on the unit twice, the psyker has cast ahmmerhand, and the effect is on the unit twice.

It has to accumulate, according to page 2

Permission to resolve does not automatically provide the effect twice

Read page 2, and note that it does in this case.

Do you have a rules argument, or just an assertion?

I have not made a *blanket* statement on *all* psychic powers.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Even though you are permitted to resolve the power, and thus the effect, twice?2

Every time i read this i see a blanket statement

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Even though you are permitted to resolve the power, and thus the effect, twice?2

Every time i read this i see a blanket statement

Shocking that you would remove the context from a sentence, removing the context of "HAMMERHAND", and think such a think

Couldnt possibly be a misleading statement, no....

The ACTUAL statement, with context preserved (those pesky words!) is:

"Abandon - so youre trying to lay claim that you cannot have "hammerhand" twice on the same unit? Even though you are permitted to resolve the power, and thus the effect, twice?"

Clearly only talking about Hammerhand. Otherwise I can edit your response to be:

kambien, but taken out of context wrote:Every time i read this i see a blanket

...and suggest you have a fixation on items, often knitted or woven, that can be used by people as bed coverings. But I wouldnt do that as it would be a fairly pointless thing to do.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Right Psychic powers are not modifiers, but they can grant modifiers. I thought you were talking about the effects of Powers, not the powers themselves.

There can be two of the same psychic power cast on a single unit, and if they grant the unit a modifier, these modifiers will stack as per P.2

To simplify, there cannot be two effects without two causes and if the causes don't stack then there can only ever be one cause. So you use Enfeeble a second time on a unit and resolve it. Now, without counting the power as being cumulative, how many Enfeebles are now effecting the unit?

Except there can be two of the same cause (Psychic power) cast on a single target unit.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except there can be two of the same cause (Psychic power) cast on a single target unit.

by definition if they are not cumulative and it will not matter how many times they are used.

To be more specific, powers themselves are nothing more than psychic abilities that a model or models possess and the text only states that effects of different powers are cumulative. Once a power is exorcised everything that happens after that is an effect of the ability including in the case of blessings/maledictions that it becomes active on the target and remains that way until the end of the next turn or a time specified in its description.

Whats stated as being cumulative:
"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." pg 68

Note power effects for maledictions/blessings:
"Blessings target a friendly unit(s) and, unless otherwise stated, last until the end of the following turn." pg 68

"Maledictions target one or more enemy units and, unless otherwise stated, last until the end of the following turn" pg 68

Note that powers themselves are never stated to be cumulative, only their effects. That does not matter though as the power itself is only used once an its over. All subsequent events under the power listing and type are effects of that power. IE targeting, psychic test, resolution, etc. Some are specific to that power and some are general for psychic powers in general or for the specific type.

Maledictions and Blessings are sustained as part of their effect and this is specifically where my issue with 'same' powers stacking comes in. How can you count more than one instance of Enfeeble sustained on a unit if they are not permitted to stack their effects. Counting more than one sustained effect on a unit is impossible because they are not permitted to be cumulative... and since you cannot count more than one sustained Enfeeble in effect on a unit, how do you justify more than a -1T no matter how many times you use the power on them.

You say you can use Enfeeble twice and resolve it twice so each should apply a -1T but that ignores the fact that there will only be one active Enfeeble effect sustained on the unit at any given point.

"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (page 68 BRB) does not mean that the effects of the same psychic power are not cumulative.

In my post from earlier, found here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/quote/180/6114707.page

There are two castings of engfeeble on a given unit.

"Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -l penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain."

"Whilst the power is in effect" ("The power" means the one that has been cast, so you can have multiples of that power in effect at the same time).

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (page 68 BRB) does not mean that the effects of the same psychic power are not cumulative.

In my post from earlier, found here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/quote/180/6114707.page

There are two castings of engfeeble on a given unit.

"Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -l penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain."

"Whilst the power is in effect" ("The power" means the one that has been cast, so you can have multiples of that power in effect at the same time).

That it does not say they are not cumulative means nothing. That they are not said to be cumulative means they are not. They also don't say bolters are not assault weapons but they don't have to because they never say they are. 'They don't say I can't' means nothing unless they do tell you that you can.

Is Hammerhand a Malediction or Blessing? Why bring up that specific power that seems to be different than the rest? I've been using Enfeeble because it's a nice generic power out of the BRB with a stat modifier and seems fairly standard and straightforward for a Malediction. Other specific powers may work in unorthodox ways which could convolute the discussion.

So you use Enfeeble twice on a unit. Since they are not cumulative, how many Enfeeble effects are sustained on them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Abandon - so youre trying to lay claim that you cannot have "hammerhand" twice on the same unit? Even though you are permitted to resolve the power, and thus the effect, twice?

That is a bizarre interpretation that does not fit into any rule that you can possibly provide.

"Hammerhand" is not on the unit twice, the psyker has cast ahmmerhand, and the effect is on the unit twice.

It has to accumulate, according to page 2

Sorry Nos, i missed this comment that was directed at me. TBH I don't know about hammerhand. Is it a blessing? I don't have the rules for it so I've been avoiding comment but by all appearance it seems to work in a non-standard way. If that is the case, why use it as an example for a general discussion about blessings/maledictions?

Hammerhand is the bastard child of the Grey Knights that breaks alot of rules itself. Overall its a bad example in this discussion.

Given that only a vague interpretation of the rules is really the obly support that 6th ed powers stack and multiple powers in 6th ed have had to state explicitly that they allow stacking I would call that a no that as a general rule the same power without specific exception allowing it to may not stack. regardless of source.

 Abandon wrote:


That it does not say they are not cumulative means nothing. That they are not said to be cumulative means they are not. They also don't say bolters are not assault weapons but they don't have to because they never say they are. 'They don't say I can't' means nothing unless they do tell you that you can.

Do you realize the BRB gives permission to cast a Psychic power on a single target unit multiple tiles from different Psykers?

So it is not "'They don't say I can't'" Because they definitely say that I can.

 Abandon wrote:

So you use Enfeeble twice on a unit. Since they are not cumulative, how many Enfeeble effects are sustained on them?

This is the part that is incorrect, the rules allow for Enfeeble, or any psychic power, to be cast on a single unit more than once.